'Gay Marriage' vs. Natural Family/Parenting: Judge

Federal District Court (Louisiana) Judge Martin L. C. Feldman ruled yesterday that same-sex marriage is simply not the norm in America and that a state government that is by the people and for the people gives the power to define marriage to the people -- not judges!  Feldman wrote, "Democracy does not presume that some subjects are too divisive or too profound for public debate."

"This Court is persuaded that Louisiana has a legitimate interest . . . whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others . . . in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents."
-- Judge Martin L. C. Feldman

UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court

For background, read about other judges (including appellate) who have ruled in favor of natural marriage saying that there is NO constitutional protection for "gay marriage," and also read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

In addition, read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court





-- From "Federal Judge, Bucking Trend, Affirms Ban on Same-Sex Marriages in Louisiana" by Campbell Robertson, New York Times 9/3/14

The case, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, was brought by the Forum for Equality, a Louisiana-based gay rights group, and seven same-sex couples either seeking to be married here or seeking to have valid marriages from other states legally recognized in Louisiana.

Judge Feldman, who was nominated to the federal bench in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan, acknowledged that he was bucking the trend of court rulings. But he said there were too many unresolved questions about such a “fundamental social change” for the courts to supplant the popular will.

“Must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece?” he wrote. “Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child?”

“This court is powerless to be indifferent to the unknown and possibly imprudent consequences of such a decision,” Judge Feldman wrote. “A decision for which there remains the arena of democratic debate.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal judge upholds La. same-sex marriage ban" by Kevin McGill, Shreveport Times 9/3/14

In 2004, 78 percent of Louisiana voters approved an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Feldman said gay marriage supporters failed to prove that ban violates equal protection or due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution. He also rejected an argument that the ban violated the First Amendment by effectively forcing legally married gay couples to state that they are single on Louisiana income tax returns.

Feldman sided with the state, which had argued that the nation's high court, in the Defense of Marriage Act decision, recognized the rights of state voters and legislatures to define marriage.

He also said that neither the Supreme Court, nor the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, have defined gay people as a protected class in discrimination cases.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "String of gay marriage victories broken in Louisiana" by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 9/3/14

Same-sex marriage was "nonexistent and even inconceivable until very recently," Feldman said in his 32-page ruling. For that reason, he said, it is not a fundamental right that states must uphold despite constitutional or legislative bans.

"The court is persuaded that a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years, and prevails in a majority of states today, is not universally irrational," Feldman said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal judge in Louisiana rules state has right to ban same-sex marriages" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post 9/3/14

“It would no doubt be celebrated to be in the company of the near-unanimity of the many other federal courts that have spoken to this pressing issue, if this court were confident in the belief that those cases provide a correct guide,” Feldman wrote. “Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of this court is but one studied decision among many.”

Both the winning and losing sides in those appellate cases have asked the Supreme Court to rule definitively on whether the U.S. Constitution extends the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples. The justices could make a decision on whether to accept the cases as early as this month.

And he said that while marriage is a fundamental right, it has not traditionally been seen as a right extended to same-sex couples. Legislatures might be free to do that, he said, but not judges.

Feldman said he had “arduously studied” the rulings by other courts and concluded that they “thus far exemplify a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos.” He said the courts “appear to have assumed the mantle of a legislative body.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "A Louisiana Judge Takes Aim at Gay Marriage—and Justice Kennedy" by Garrett Epps, The Atlantic 9/3/14

. . . Feldman’s opinion represents a fundamental challenge, couched in terms of recent Supreme Court precedent, to the claim that United States v. Windsor requires states to allow same-sex marriage. . . .

In his dissent in Windsor, [U.S. Supreme Court] Chief Justice John Roberts extended an invitation to lower courts to read that case as an ode to state power rather than to marriage equality. In Robicheaux v. Caldwell, Feldman for the first time makes Roberts’s words the basis of a decision a claim for marriage equality. Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Justice Antonin Scalia’s more prominent dissent, which angrily prophesied victory for same-sex marriage when it comes before the Court again.

In discussing the political dialogue over marriage, Feldman makes his most direct appeal to the High Court of Kennedy. He notes that Kennedy, in a decision earlier this year, wrote an opinion upholding a Michigan voter initiative in which a majority of voters cast ballots to outlaw race-based affirmative action. Feldman applies the rationale of that opinion, called BAMN v. Schuette, to voter initiatives that bar same-sex marriage . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Louisiana same-sex marriage ban survives challenge" by Lyle Denniston, Reporter, Supreme Court of the United States Blog 9/3/14

“This court,” Judge Feldman wrote, “finds it difficult to minimize, indeed, ignore, the high court’s powerful reminder in Windsor:  ’The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’” Other parts of  Windsor quotations cited by the judge include these:  ”‘The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the [p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.  . . .  The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.”

He rejected a “heightened scrutiny” test for same-sex marriage laws by concluding that both the Supreme Court and the court of appeals in his region — the Fifth Circuit — had yet to recognize sexual orientation as a class deserving constitutional protection against discrimination, although they have had opportunities to do so.  He added that he was declining to “fashion a new suspect class” for purposes of constitutional analysis of claims of discrimination.

Moving on from the equal protection challenge to the claim that the ban violates constitutional promises of due process, Judge Feldman concluded that same-sex couples were seeking a new constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex, rather than a right to share equally in marriage itself.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Natural Marriage IS Constitutional: Tenn. Judge

With little fanfare, and almost no media coverage, Judge Russell Simmons ruled last week that the Tennessee constitutional amendment defining one-man-one-woman marriage, which was passed by 81% of the voters in 2006, does NOT violate the U.S. Constitution.  This court case involved a challenge to the amendment by Frederick Michael Borman and Larry Kevin Pyles-Borman, two men who were "married" in Iowa, but who wanted to get divorced in Tennessee, where they live.

“… neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a state’s responsibility. … Marriage simply cannot be divorced from its traditional procreative purposes. … The promotion of family continuity and stability is certainly a legitimate state interest.”
-- Circuit Court Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr., Roane County, Tennessee

UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court

For background, read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  However, there are lone appellate judges who say that there is NO constitutional protection for "gay marriage."

-- From "Same-Sex Marriage Ban Survives Challenge in Tennessee" by Nolan Feeney, Time Magazine 8/11/14

More than two dozen federal and state court rulings since the Supreme Court’s United States v. Windsor decision in June 2013 have successfully challenged and/or nullified bans. Simmons’ ruling rejects both a claim of discrimination and a claim that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause forces the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

“The Supreme Court does not go the final step and find that a state that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional,” Simmons wrote. “Further, the Supreme Court does not find that one state’s refusal to accept another state’s valid same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.”

Simmons’ ruling only formally addressed and upheld the part of Tennessee’s ban that doesn’t recognize pre-existing same-sex marriages from other states, though this aspect is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Tennessee judge breaks gay marriage's streak" by Mario Trujillo, The Hill 8/12/14

. . . the United States V. Windsor Supreme Court case in 2013 . . . struck down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but Simmons said it did not apply to the Tennessee case.

"The Windsor case is concerned with the definition of marriage, only as it applies to federal laws, and does not give an opinion concerning whether one state must accept as valid a same-sex marriage allowed in another state," he wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Tennessee's Gay Marriage Ban Is Constitutional, Judge Rules; Breaks Streak of Ban Losses" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 8/12/14

In his decision, Simmons cited the 1972 case Baker v. Nelson, a lesser known decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court, arguing that gay marriage is not a fundamental right.

"Baker holds that a state's law on same-sex marriage does not violate the equal protection or substantive due process rights under the United States Constitution," wrote Simmons in his memorandum opinion.

"Although the United States Supreme Court has had opportunities to overrule the Baker decision, it has refused to take that position even in the decision on which the plaintiff relies, which is United States v. Windsor."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "String of same-sex marriage rulings broken" by Lyle Denniston, Reporter, SCOTUSblog 8/11/14

Although Judge Simmons’s decision was limited to cases involving a divorce when the marriage itself is not recognized, he ruled in sweeping terms.  He relied in part upon the Supreme Court’s summary decision in 1972 rejecting a constitutional challenge to a Minnesota ban, concluding that the Justices have never abandoned that ruling.

To the argument that more recent gay rights decisions have undercut that precedent, the Tennessee judge responded that the issue should more properly be raised in an appellate court with broader authority than that of a trial judge.

Besides rejecting a challenge to the Tennessee ban based on a claim of illegal discrimination, Judge Simmons turned aside an argument that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause required Tennessee to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

'Gay Marriage' NOT Protected, Says Appellate Judge

Yesterday, more judges ruled that American voters are barred from defining natural marriage (e.g.: Indiana), but also yesterday, Judge Paul Kelly of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals became the only federal judge, since last year's Supreme Court ruling on DOMA, to rule that the U.S. Constitution does NOT provide a special right for homosexual "marriage."

UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court

UPDATE 7/30/14: 4th Circuit Judge Bucks Majority 'Gay Marriage' Ruling, Saying Polygamy Will Follow

For background, read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

However, also read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

In addition, read that just this week, Vice President Biden declared that the Gay Agenda must trump religious beliefs, and even a so-called Tea Party U.S. Senator said that same-sex "marriage" and abortion are non-issues.

-- From "Thoughts on today’s Tenth Circuit decision striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage" by Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, Washington Post 6/25/14

. . . this decision is significant because it is the first such ruling by an appellate court. It is also notable because there is a lengthy and detailed dissent by Judge Paul Kelly, who has now become the first judge since Windsor to conclude that a state law banning same-sex marriage does not violate the Constitution. Kelly’s opinion suggests that there is not a clear consensus in the federal judiciary about either the implications of Windsor or the same-sex marriage issue more generally.

. . . today’s decision is an important victory for advocates of same-sex marriage. But Judge Kelly’s dissent suggests that the legal battle over the issue is far from over. The question is likely to return to the Supreme Court, quite possibly sooner than many of us at first anticipated.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ruling shows crack in legal gay marriage unanimity" by Nicholas Riccardi, Associated Press 6/26/14

Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. was in the minority in his opinion as the two other judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel found the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of gay couples to marry. Kelly has broken the string of 16 state and federal judges who sided with gay marriage advocates in cases across the country over the past year.

Kelly, 73, is a Republican and appointee of President George H.W. Bush . . . in his 21-page dissent, Kelly warned that his colleagues were overreaching in striking down Utah's voter-approved gay marriage ban.

Creating a national mandate for gay marriage, even in states where it is unpopular, "turns the notion of a limited national government on its head," he wrote, adding later: "We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Utah plans to appeal appellate court's ruling on same-sex marriage to U.S. Supreme Court" by Marjorie Cortez, Deseret News National Edition 6/25/14

The Utah Attorney General's Office said it will appeal to the high court but did not rule out the possibility of first asking the full 10th Circuit court to review the case.

. . . the ruling also brought a defense of state rights. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. dissented from Judge Carlos Lucero and Judge Jerome Holmes in the ruling . . .

"If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head," [Judge Kelly] wrote. "Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this is inevitable."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 7/18/14: "Appeals court strikes down Oklahoma gay marriage ban" by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY

[The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit] in Denver struck down a second state ban on same-sex marriage Friday, ruling that Oklahoma -- like Utah before it - cannot prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying.

As was the case with Utah's appeal, the panel split 2-1, with Judges Carlos Lucero and Jerome Holmes voting to strike down the ban and Judge Paul Kelly dissenting.

In his dissent, Kelly -- named to the bench by President George H.W. Bush -- said "any change in the definition of marriage rightly belongs to the people of Oklahoma, not a federal court. . . . At a time when vigorous public debate is defining policies concerning sexual orientation, this court has intervened with a view of marriage ostensibly driven by the Constitution," Kelly said. "Unfortunately, this approach short-circuits the healthy political processes leading to a rough consensus on matters of sexual autonomy, and marginalizes those of good faith who draw the line short of same-gender marriage."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama's DOJ: States Should Violate Oath for Gays

President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder is advising state attorneys general to violate their oath of office -- to uphold the constitution upon which they were sworn into office -- regarding advocacy for same-sex marriage.  Holder justifies this lawlessness by equating discrimination against deviant sexual lifestyle choices to discrimination against race by citing the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case

"If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities."
-- Eric Holder, U.S. "top law enforcement official"

For background, read Obama DOJ Negates Voters in 34 States: Gay Agenda

In addition, read President Obama Edicts Homosexual 'Marriage' to ALL States and also read how Obama's examples of lawlessness are spreading in federal government, as well as in state and local governments across America.

UPDATE 3/3/14 - American Decline: Obama's Gay Agenda vs Christians

UPDATE 2/27/14: Holder, said to be in good health, suffers heart-attack-like symptoms, taken to hospital, shortly after anti-marriage speech



-- From "State lawyers don't have to defend gay marriage bans: Holder" by Eric M. Johnson, Reuters 2/25/14

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's comments to the New York Times came after at least five state lawyers, all of them Democrats, came under fire for refusing to try and defeat legal challenges to bars on same-sex unions in their areas.

Attorneys general should base their decision on whether to defend their states in such cases, not on politics, but on questions of guarantees under the U.S. Constitution, such as equal protection of the law, Holder added.

"Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that's appropriate for an attorney general to do," Holder told the New York Times.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Holder Sees Way to Curb Bans on Gay Marriage" by Matt Apuzzo, New York Times 2/24/14

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. . . .

In his role as the administration’s leading voice on civil rights issues, he has at times earned sharp criticism from Republicans who see him as infringing on state autonomy. . . .

Colorado’s attorney general, John W. Suthers, a Republican, has also warned against attorneys general making decisions about which laws to defend.

“I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs,” Mr. Suthers wrote in The Washington Post this month. “But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Wisconsin AG Van Hollen unhappy with Holder comments regarding gay marriage" by Wheeler News Service posted at WTAQ-1360AM (Green Bay, WI) 2/25/14

Wisconsin's [attorney general] J.B. Van Hollen says it's not Holder's job to give advice on defending state constitutions -- and it's not the states' roles to give Holder advice on how to do his job.

Wisconsin's 2006 constitutional ban on gay marriage was challenged earlier this month, in a federal lawsuit that Van Hollen says he'll try to strike down.

Holder is expected to discuss his stance in a speech today to the national AG's group. Democratic attorneys general in several states have refused to defend their state gay marriage bans, while Republicans said they have an obligation to defend all state laws -- not just the ones they agree with.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Holder Blasted For Encouraging State AGs to Ignore Same-Sex Marriage Bans" by Barbara Hollingsworth, CNSNews.com 2/25/14

“Eric Holder apparently isn't satisfied with refusing to carry out his own oath to defend the Constitution, he wants to see state attorneys general do the same,” responded Carrie Severino, chief counsel to the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN).

“Hotly-debated political issues like the redefinition of a marriage are precisely the type of thing that must be left to the voters of a state, not the fiat of a single state officer,” she added.

RAGA chairman Alan Wilson, South Carolina’s attorney general, agreed. “This administration is repeatedly ignoring the rule of law. We’re seeing the same thing happen with Obamacare as the Obama administration continues to pick and choose which parts of the law they will enforce and which they will delay without legislative action.

To read the entire petition, CLICK HERE.

From "Eric Holder To State AGs: You Don't Have To Defend Gay Marriage Bans" by Ashley Alman, The Huffington Post 2/25/14

[In response to Holder . . .]

"When legal arguments exist to defend a law, it is the duty of the Office of the Attorney General under North Carolina law to make those arguments in court regardless of whether I agree with the law," said North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D), who personally supports same-sex marriage.

“It really isn’t [Holder's] job to give us advice on defending our constitutions any more than it’s our role to give him advice on how to do his job,” Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (R) told the Times. “We are the ultimate defenders of our state constitutions.”

Back in 2010, Holder sounded more like Cooper, arguing in reference to DOMA that the Justice Department "has a responsibility to defend those statutes that the Congress has passed if there is an argument that can be made to defend those statutes."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Holder: Discriminatory laws don’t need defending" by The Associated Press 2/25/14

State attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws in their states banning same-sex marriage if the laws discriminate in a way forbidden by the Constitution, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told his state counterparts Tuesday.

Holder cited his own experience in refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as well as similar stances taken more recently by state attorneys general, in saying that laws raising questions of equal protection deserve a higher level of scrutiny. Any refusal to defend a state law must not be made lightly, he said, but it’s imperative to uphold the values “that all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity.”

His own view, he said, is that “we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Eric Holder becomes an activist attorney general" by Evan Perez, CNN Justice Reporter 2/21/14

The key mile-marker in Holder's five-year tenure is President Barack Obama's February 2011 decision -- with Holder's recommendation -- to quit legally defending the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act. The law required the federal government to deny recognition of same-sex marriages.

"When you look at his entire record, Eric Holder will have done more to expand justice in the United States than any attorney general since Bobby Kennedy," says Matthew Miller, a former aide to Holder who remains close to the attorney general.

Holder's most aggressive moves have come in recent weeks with an aggressive interpretation of last year's Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Falling Down on the Job - State AGs shirk their duty to defend state laws" by Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., posted at The Weekly Standard 2/17/14

Under well-settled principles of the American adversary system, a lawyer is ethically obligated to represent his client’s legal position zealously in court. That means, among other things, that if there are nonfrivolous arguments that can be advanced in support of a client’s position, the lawyer should advocate that position when the lawyer determines that it is in the client’s strategic interest to do so. Under narrow circumstances, a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client in a matter. But he may never fail to advocate a defensible position simply because he personally believes it to be legally incorrect.

By virtue of his office, a state attorney general is the top lawyer for his client, the state. Except for laws still on the books that are clearly invalid under existing judicial rulings, the only sensible legal position to impute to the state is that its laws—the provisions of the state constitution and the statutes consistent with those provisions—are valid and enforceable. The attorney general’s obligations as a lawyer therefore require him to vigorously defend any of those laws against challenge under federal law so long as there are reasonable (i.e., nonfrivolous) grounds for doing so.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Constitution Check: Must government lawyers defend laws they deem to be invalid?" by Lyle Denniston, Constitution Daily 2/25/14

. . . state attorneys general who concluded individually that their state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional [were] well aware of the ethical obligation that an attorney has to zealously represent the client – in these cases, the federal government or the state government. That also is a legal obligation on each as the government’s chief lawyer.  For the U.S. attorney general, the legal obligation is a constitutional command: as a Cabinet officer, the attorney general, too, is bound by Article II’s mandate that the Executive Branch “faithfully execute” the laws.  Similar duties are imposed on state attorneys general.

Each of those legal officers, however, also has to take an oath to defend the Constitution.  In the situation each faced, they concluded that they could not do both.  And, in each, these officers chose to stop defending their government’s law.

To read the entire opinion column above arguing in favor of Obama administration lawlessness, CLICK HERE.

From "Coalition Of Black Pastors Call For Holder Impeachment Over Same-Sex Marriage" posted at CBS News Washington, DC 2/25/14

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) is calling for Holder’s impeachment for “attempting to impose ‘same-sex marriage’ throughout the nation despite federal law, rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, and state constitutional amendments to the contrary,” reads the online petition.

“What we have in Attorney General Holder is a man so political in his zeal to redefine marriage that he is willing to run roughshod over the rulings of the Supreme Court, binging federal law, and the United States Constitution along with the constitutions of a majority of states,” the Rev. Bill Owens, founder and president of CAAP, said in a statement.

The CAAP’s petition calling for Holder’s impeachment says that Holder’s position on the matter is in opposition to the values of the black community, and similarly faults President Barack Obama for his support of same-sex marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For background, read Black Pastors Split with NAACP, Obama on Gay Agenda

From "Black pastors want Eric Holder impeached" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 2/25/14

[Rev. Bill Owens said,] “It’s one thing to make a political argument that gay marriage should be the law, but it’s quite another to take actions that ignore federal law, Supreme Court rulings and the constitutions of dozens of states that have specifically rejected the redefinition of marriage which the administration is trying to impose.”

“The pattern of disregard for the rule of law and refusal to be forthright has only continued,” Olson said at that time. “The American people deserve answers and accountability. If the attorney general refuses to provide answers, then Congress must take action.”

Olson ‘s cosponsors are Reps. Larry Buschon, R-Ind., Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, David Roe R-Tenn., Randy Weber, R-Texas, Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., Roger Williams, R-Texas, Ted Yoho, R-Fla., Louie Gohmert, R-Texas., Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., Bill Flores, R-Texas, Mark Amodei, R-Nev., Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., Sam Johnson, R-Texas, Steve Stockman, R-Texas, Mike Conaway, R-Texas and Thomas Massie, R-Ky.

To read the entire petition, CLICK HERE.

From "Holder has abandoned his Oath" petition posted by the Coalition of African American Pastors 2/25/14

. . . our elected leaders are bent on destroying marriage, remaking it as a genderless institution and reorienting it to be all about the desires of adults rather than the needs of children.

In pursuing this intention, the President and his administration are trampling the rule of law. Attorney General Holder in particular has used the influence of his office and role as the chief law enforcement figure in our nation to try to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda. Millions of voters in 30 states have voted to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but Attorney General Holder is attempting single-handedly to throw those votes away!

To read the entire petition, CLICK HERE.

In addition, read President Obama's Department of Justice Forces Employees to Celebrate Deviancy and separately the DOJ Forces School Girl into Boys Locker Room

And also read School Doesn't Back Gay Agenda, Obama Investigates

Judges Negate Marriage Votes in Kentucky, Virginia

It's becoming so routine that it doesn't even make front page news anymore.

Even though the Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, and marriage has been defined for thousands of years, and homosexual behavior has been exhibited for too many centuries, all of a sudden, over a period of a few years, judges say that citizens don't know what a marriage is?

For background, read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Also read President Obama's DOJ Negates Marriage Voters in 34 States

-- From "Federal Judge Overturns Virginia’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 2/14/14

“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,” wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. “Surely this means all of us.”

The ruling, which overturned a constitutional amendment adopted by Virginia voters in 2006 as well as previous laws, also said that Virginia must respect same-sex marriages that were carried out legally in other states.

But opponents of same-sex marriage have vowed to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, and Judge Wright Allen stayed the execution of Thursday’s ruling pending the appeal.

But many legal experts believe that this case, or another among the dozens now being argued in federal district or appeals courts around the country, will eventually be taken up by the United States Supreme Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal judge strikes down Va. ban on gay marriage" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post 2/13/14

Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring (D), who had switched the state’s legal position on the issue and joined two gay couples in asking that the ban be struck down, has said the state will continue to enforce the prohibitions until the legal process is completed.

“Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships,” Wright Allen wrote. “Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.”

Wright Allen added: “Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.”

She joined a so-far unanimous group of federal judges considering a question that Supreme Court justices left unanswered in June in their first consideration of gay marriage: Does a state’s traditional role in defining marriage mean it may ban same-sex unions without violating the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gay marriage coming to the South? Kentucky ruling chips away at ban" by Matt Pearce, Los Angeles Times 2/12/14

District Judge John G. Heyburn ordered that Kentucky recognize same-sex marriages that had been legally performed in other states and opened the door wide for activists to strike down Kentucky's ban entirely.

"For years, many states had a tradition of segregation and even articulated reasons why it created a better, more stable society," Heyburn wrote, in what may likely become one of the most frequently-quoted passages of his decision. "Similarly, many states deprived women of their equal rights under the law, believing this to properly preserve our traditions.

"In time, even the most strident supporters of these views understood that they could not enforce their particular moral views to the detriment of another's constitutional rights. Here as well, sometime in the not too distant future, the same understanding will come to pass."

It wasn't immediately clear how Heyburn's ruling will be received in deeply conservative Kentucky, whose voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2004 with 74% of the vote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kentucky gay marriage: Judge says state must recognize gay marriages performed in other states" by The Associated Press 2/13/14

[Judge Heyburn] mainly relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling striking down a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on which Kentucky's same-sex marriage amendment had been based.

It was unclear Wednesday evening if the state would appeal the decision to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has never been asked to directly rule on whether a state must recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

Attorney General Jack Conway said he upheld his duty to defend the law, but deferred any further comment because a final order had not been issued in the case.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are hoping the decision opens the door to more breakthroughs, including requiring Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Attorney Shannon Fauver, who represented the [homosexual] couples, said such a lawsuit could be filed in Kentucky by Friday — on Valentine's Day.

"That's what the Constitution is for," Fauver told The Associated Press. "That's part of what the Constitution is for, to prevent someone from imposing religious beliefs and traditions on others."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama DOJ Negates Voters in 34 States: Gay Agenda

With the stroke of a pen yesterday, the Obama administration Department of Justice extended same-sex "marriage" to every state in America, thus overruling citizens' decisions in the vast majority of the nation's states.  This action grants the right of homosexuals who are "married" in a select few liberal states to foist their deviant lifestyle choice onto citizens in every state.

For background, read President Obama Edicts Homosexual 'Marriage' to ALL States and also read how Obama's examples of lawlessness are spreading in federal government, as well as in state and local governments across America.



-- From "Feds to Provide Legal Benefits, Services to All in Same-Sex Marriages" reported by CNN Wire 2/8/14

The expansion of such federal recognition will include 34 states where same-sex marriage isn’t legal, but the new federal benefits being extended to those states will apply only where the U.S. government has jurisdiction, Holder said.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced the initiative on Saturday, Feb. 8, 2014, at a gay rights group’s gala.

In his speech, Holder announced the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages “to the greatest extent possible under the law.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Holder applies same-sex marriage ruling to Justice" by The Associated Press 2/8/14

Holder’s speech was criticized by the conservative National Organization for Marriage.

“This is just the latest in a series of moves by the Obama administration, and in particular the Department of Justice, to undermine the authority and sovereignty of the states to make their own determinations regulating the institution of marriage,” said Brian Brown, the group’s president. “The changes being proposed here to a process as universally relevant as the criminal justice system serve as a potent reminder of why it is simply a lie to say that redefining marriage doesn’t affect everyone in society.”

Holder told his audience:

—The Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases should have the same legal rights as all other married couples . . . even in states where same-sex marriages are not recognized, the federal government will not use state views as a basis . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Justice Department to give married same-sex couples equal protection" by Sari Horwitz, Washington Post 2/8/14

The Justice Department on Monday will instruct all of its employees across the country, for the first time, to give lawful same-sex marriages sweeping equal protection under the law in every program it administers, from courthouse proceedings to prison visits to the compensation of surviving spouses of public safety officers.

In a new policy memo, the department will spell out the rights of same-sex couples, including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouses, even if their marriages are not recognized in the state where the couple lives.

In addition, an inmate in a same-sex marriage can be furloughed to be present during a crisis involving a spouse. In bankruptcy cases, same-sex married couples will be eligible to file for bankruptcy jointly. Domestic support obligations will include debts, such as alimony, owed to a former same-sex spouse. Certain debts to same-sex spouses or former spouses should be excepted from discharge.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

In addition, read President Obama's Department of Justice Forces Employees to Celebrate Deviancy and separately the DOJ Forces School Girl into Boys Locker Room

And also read School Doesn't Back Gay Agenda, Obama Investigates

Activist Judges Say Scalia Right on 'Gay Marriage'

Gay Agenda judges across America are rapidly falling in line to forbid American voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a devout Roman Catholic, has warned for more than a decade that judicial activism in the high court decisions were pointing toward an eventual stripping of moral values from the fabric that created America.

Just as Scalia predicted, when he Slammed the Supreme Court Majority in June 2013:

Federal Judge OKs Polygamy in Utah

Federal Judge Orders Utah 'Gay Marriages' to Proceed — UPDATE 7/19/14: Supreme Court Blocks "Gay Marriages" OKd by Obama's DOJ

Federal Judge Negates Ohio Voters, Recognizes 'Gay Marriage'

Pennsylvania Officials Defy Voters, Issue 'Gay Marriage' Licenses — UPDATE 5/20/14: Federal Judge Rules Voters Cannot Define Natural Marriage

North Carolina Officials Defy Voters re: 'Gay Marriage' Licenses

Hawaii Government Oppose Citizens re: 'Gay Marriage'

Illinois Government Oppose Black & Catholic Churches re: 'Gay Marriage'

New Jersey Supreme Court Mandates 'Gay Marriage'

New Mexico Supreme Court Legalizes 'Gay Marriage'

President Obama Edicts 'Gay Marriage' to ALL States

UPDATE 2/10/14: New Mexico Voters' Defense of Marriage Now Said to be Indefensible

UPDATE 2/10/14: Lawless Nevada GOP Governor Yields 'Gay Marriage' Victory at 9th Circuit

UPDATE 2/14/14: Judges Negate Marriage Votes in Kentucky, Virginia

UPDATE 3/4/14: GOP Coalition Pushes 'Gay Marriage' in 10th Circuit Appeals Court

UPDATE 3/22/14: Suddenly, Judge Proclaims 'Gay Marriages' Must Commence in Michigan

UPDATE 5/10/14: Judges Negate Voters in Arkansas & Indiana: Gay Agenda

UPDATE 5/20/14: Idaho ruling against natural marriage put on hold by 9th Circuit Appeals Court

UPDATE 5/20/14: Oregon Judge Enacts 'Gay Marriage,' Citizens Want Re-vote to Overrule Judge

UPDATE 6/10/14: 'Gay Marriage' Chaos in Wisconsin after Judicial Ruling

UPDATE 7/18/14: 10th Circuit Rules for Same-sex "Marriage" in Utah & Oklahoma

UPDATE 7/30/14: 4th Circuit Judge Says Polygamy Will Follow Ruling for 'Gay Marriage'

UPDATE 9/6/14: 7th Circuit Court Goes Gay for Indiana & Wisconsin

UPDATE 10/7/14: List of status of all 50 states - same-sex "marriage" (Associated Press)

UPDATE 1/6/15: Florida Goes Gay, as a Few Judges Overrule 5 Million Voters

In contrast, 'Gay Marriage' Flops in Expanding European Union and also Africans Reject Obama's Gay Agenda, to his Face

UPDATE 5/20/14: 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

! ! ! ! UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court

-- From "Judge Completely Trolls Justice Scalia In Striking Down Utah's Gay Marriage Ban" by Brett LoGiurato, Business Insider 12/20/13

[Justice Antonin Scalia's] prediction came true on Friday, when U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah's 2004 ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. And Shelby even made note of Scalia's dissent at points in his ruling, citing it as part of his reasoning in striking down the Utah law.

Scalia warned that the Supreme Court's reasoning that struck down [one portion of] the Defense of Marriage Act — which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples — could be used to strike down state laws banning same-sex marriage. Scalia, who's notoriously anti-gay marriage, was saying this was a bad thing. In an interesting twist, Utah's Judge Shelby quoted Scalia's negative prophecy in his pro-gay marriage opinion [and] then wrote that he "agreed" with that part of Scalia's opinion, and offered his response. Though Scalia meant it as some kind of dire warning, Shelby cited the Supreme Court's decision as a reason to overturn Utah's law:

The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling ripples through lower courts" by Matt Pearce, Los Angeles Times 12/23/13

The scenarios must have sounded all too familiar to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In June, when the court issued a landmark decision ordering the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they were legal, Scalia warned of what could come next.

"How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status," Scalia wrote in a scathing dissent in United States vs. Windsor, which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act but left state laws intact. "No one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe" to drop.

Now, for opponents of same-sex marriage, the other shoe is dropping.

"Now it is just as Justice Scalia predicted," [U.S. District Judge Timothy S.] Black wrote in his Ohio ruling. "The lower courts are applying the Supreme Court's decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples. ... Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."

[Numerous] judges have overridden legislators and voters who had approved the bans before national popular opinion began to tilt in favor of same-sex marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Same-Sex-Marriage Supporters Applaud Ohio and Utah Rulings" by Jack Healy And Trip Gabriel, New York Times 12/23/13

The same-sex weddings began in a joyful chaos on Friday afternoon after Judge Shelby declared that the ban that Utah voters approved in 2004 violated the United States Constitution. While many gay-rights advocates expected a favorable ruling from Judge Shelby, an appointee of President Obama, the timing caught many gay couples off-guard. . . .

Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, said the flurry of new marriages and unresolved legal questions — lawyers on both sides said the case was likely to reach the United States Supreme Court — had created “a lot of chaos” in Utah. He condemned the ruling as an activist judge’s attack on a definition of traditional marriage that was supported by a wide majority of Utah residents.

. . . A spokeswoman for Ohio’s attorney general, Mike DeWine, said he would appeal the [Ohio] ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Ohio decision did not go as far as the ruling in Utah, but experts said both were among federal cases around the country likely to return the issue of same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Same-Sex Marriage, The Legal Deluge" by Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker 12/24/13

. . . The Mormon Church, once a leader of the anti-marriage-equality fight and a major force in Utah, was practically apologetic in its disagreement with the decision. “The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect,” the Church statement said. “This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process.” A few dead-enders in Utah have fought back, and there is no guarantee that the decision will survive on appeal, but the muted response suggests that everyone, on all sides of the issue, sees where the country is headed.

Dominoes are falling all over. The day before Utah became the eighteenth state (in addition to the District of Columbia) to allow same-sex marriage, New Mexico became No. 17. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that its state constitution required marriage equality.

. . . The Ohio [Judge Black] decision is crucial because people in the United States tend to move from state to state. . . . It would be a disorderly mess to have separate spheres of law [from state to state] for gay married couples and straight married couples . . .

What [Utah's Judge] Shelby and all these judges are seeing is that it is impossible to offer gay people some rights and not others. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal Judge: Right to Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Deeply Rooted in Nation’s History and Implicit in The Concept of Ordered Liberty'" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 12/21/13

“The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond,” wrote [Judge Shelby].

“This right is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference,” he declared. “And, as discussed above, this right is enjoyed by all individuals. If the right to same-sex marriage were a new right, then it should make new protections and benefits available to all citizens. But heterosexual individuals are as likely to exercise their purported right to same-sex marriage as gay men and lesbians are to exercise their purported right to opposite-sex marriage. Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of one right—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities.”

“The Plaintiffs are seeking access to an existing right, not the declaration of a new right,” said the judge.

The judge argued that the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, are the two provisions of the Constitution that have guaranteed the “existing right” of a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ohio gay marriage ruling may just be beginning" by Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press 12/24/13

In a broadly written ruling Monday, Judge Timothy Black said Ohio's ["Gay Marriage"] ban is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don't like homosexuality.

Bridget Coontz, the attorney who argued on behalf of the state, said Wednesday in Black's Cincinnati courtroom that in the Supreme Court's historic June decision, the justices also found that states have the right to decide for themselves whether to recognize gay marriage, and Ohio voters decided not to in 2004.

"Ohio doesn't want Delaware or Maryland to define who is married under Ohio law," she said. "To allow that to happen would allow one state to set the marriage policy for all others."

Black said constitutional rights trump Ohio's gay marriage ban, questioning whether it was passed for a legitimate state interest "other than simply maintaining a 'traditional' definition of marriage."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 12/29/13: "Scalia finds his predictions on same-sex-marriage ruling being borne out" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post

. . . as Scalia pointed out, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s DOMA decision practically provided a blueprint for how such challenges might be successful.

It is not surprising that judges might want to quote a conservative justice when striking down what voters have put in place. Ohio and Utah voters amended their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriages in 2004, along with other states. Black and Shelby were nominated by President Obama.

Shelby, 43, does not have the reputation as a firebrand. He had been on the bench only six months when he was assigned the same-sex marriage case Kitchen v. Herbert. He was previously a Salt Lake City lawyer and was honored for his service in Operation Desert Storm while in the Utah National Guard.

The state of Utah has said it will ask the Supreme Court to stay Shelby’s ruling and stop same-sex marriages while an appeals court considers the merits of the decision. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

And although 'Gay Marriage' is NOT America's Choice, as Polling Shows, nonetheless More High-profile Republicans are Going Gay Agenda, and the Republican Party is Funding Homosexualist Candidates, thus demonstrating that The GOP Has Failed the Nationwide Marriage Amendment Test

Also read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

UPDATE 10/19/14: Idaho Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'

Supreme Court Mandates 'Gay Marriage' in New Jersey

Last year, the New Jersey legislature, controlled by Democrats, passed a same-sex "marriage" bill that was then vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie, but now, the courts in the state have unanimously ruled that homosexuals must be issued marriage licenses beginning tomorrow.

"While the governor firmly believes that this determination should be made by all the people of the State of New Jersey, he has instructed the Department of Health to cooperate with all municipalities in effectuating the order."
-- Gov. Chris Christie's spokesman Michael Drewniak

For background, read Same-sex 'Marriage' Passes New Jersey Legislature, but Gov. Vetos Bill

Also read Homosexuality NOT a Sin, Says Gov. Christie's Law

In addition, read 'Gay Marriage' Sweeps New England. D'ya Notice?

UPDATE 10/21/13: With his re-election day looming, Gov. Christie announces his acceptance of "gay marriage."

-- From "Same-sex marriages to begin Monday in NJ" by The Associated Press 10/18/13

The ruling puts New Jersey on the cusp of becoming the 14th state -- and the third most populous among them -- to allow same-sex marriage. The advocacy group Freedom to Marry said that as of Monday, one-third of Americans will live in a place where same-sex marriage is legal.

A judge on a lower court had ruled last month that New Jersey must recognize same-sex marriage and set Monday as the date to allow weddings. Christie, a Republican who is considered a possible 2016 presidential candidate, appealed the decision and asked for the start date to be put on hold while the state appeals.

New Jersey's top court agreed last week to take up the appeal of the lower-court ruling. Oral arguments are expected Jan. 6 or 7.

In Friday's opinion, [New Jersey's Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart] Rabner wrote that the state has not shown that it is likely to prevail in the case . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New Jersey same-sex marriages can begin Monday, state’s Supreme Court rules" by Aaron Blake and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post 10/18/13

. . . Opponents, meanwhile, said the decision showed how judicial activism could distort the political process.

“The definition of marriage is something that should be decided by the people of New Jersey themselves, not by any judge or court,” Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement.

Udi Ofer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties of New Jersey, said the best solution would be for the state legislature to legalize same-sex marriage by the end of the year. Advocates of same-sex marriage need to pick up three votes in the state Senate and 12 in the General Assembly to override Christie’s veto by January; in recent weeks, six Assembly members, four Republicans and two Democrats, have announced that they now support same-sex marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New Jersey top court rules gay marriages can begin on Monday" by Joseph Ax, Reuters 10/18/13

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson in Trenton ruled three weeks ago in favor of gay couples who had challenged the state's civil union law, finding that it unfairly restricted federal benefits that are guaranteed for married couples.

Jacobson's decision made New Jersey the first state to lift a gay marriage ban as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June to strike down [only ONE portion of] the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Supreme Court's ruling prompted a flurry of court filings from advocates in states across the country.

Next week, gay rights advocates will argue for marriage in New Mexico Supreme Court. A federal judge in Michigan this week set a February trial date for a gay marriage case there.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

In addition, read More High-profile Republicans Going Gay Agenda and thus the Nationwide Marriage Amendment Puts Republicans to the Test

Obama Breaks Law, Gives VA Money to Homosexuals

President Obama ordered his "justice" department to violate Title 38 of the U.S. Code governing the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense, which designates benefits only for one-man, one-woman marriage. In carrying out the order, DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder admits that the recent Supreme Court "Windsor" decision on same-sex "marriage" did NOT address Title 38, but Holder said the Obama administration considers Title 38 unconstitutional -- no need for a judicial branch decision.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

President Obama's 'Marriage' Lawlessness Spreads Across America

President Obama Shifts Defense Funds to Homosexuals

President Obama Grants 'Reparations' to Homosexuals via Military

Countering Obama's Military Attack on American Culture

-- From "Same-sex military spoues to get benefits, Obama administration says" by The Associated Press 9/5/13

"Decisions by the Executive not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare," Holder told Congress. "Nevertheless, the unique circumstances presented here warrant non-enforcement."

He said the Supreme Court's conclusion that DOMA imposes a stigma on everyone in same-sex marriages "would seem to apply equally" to the veterans benefits law.

Although the Supreme Court did not directly address the constitutionality of the veterans benefits provisions, the reasoning of the opinion "strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional," Holder wrote.

President Barack Obama directed the executive branch to cease enforcement of the provision, Holder wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Same-sex spouses can collect veterans' benefits" by Becca Clemons, Los Angeles Times 9/4/13

President Obama goes beyond the Supreme Court's Defense of Marriage Act ruling, directing the government to stop enforcing provisions that withheld spousal benefits from legally married gay veterans.

The Obama administration has made a series of policy decisions since the Windsor decision to extend federal benefits to legally married gay couples. Wednesday's announcement went further in that it declared unconstitutional and therefore invalid an existing statute that was not considered by the Supreme Court.

Last week, the Internal Revenue Service announced that couples in same-sex marriages could file federal taxes jointly. The Office of Personnel Management has allowed same-sex spouses of federal employees to receive insurance benefits regardless of where they live. And in regard to immigration law, same-sex marriages are now treated the same as opposite-sex marriages.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Spousal Benefits Now Await Gay Veterans, Obama Says" by Barbara Leonard, Courthouse News Service 9/4/13

Attorney General Holder announced the move in a letter to John Boehner, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and emphasized its consistency with United States v. Windsor.

Holder's letter also marks an additional step from one the Obama administration took in 2012 when it informed Congress that the Justice Department would no longer defend the Title 38 provisions, but that the Executive Branch would continue to enforce them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cost of Federal Government's Benefits Expansion to Same-Sex Couples Unknown, Sources Say" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 9/5/13

Edmund Byrnes, spokesman for the OPM [United States Office of Personnel Management], told The Christian Post via an email sent August 1 . . . "There are numerous benefits that are affected by the Supreme Court's decision . . . [but the OPM does] not have an estimate of same sex spouses that may be added" to the federal government health insurance program (FEHB).

. . . Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, spokesman for the DoD [Department of Defense], told The Christian Post via email in August that "we will assess costs as we move forward with implementation."

"Additionally, we do not have an estimate of how many people this will impact. . . ." wrote Christensen.

When CP later contacted Christensen again as to whether DoD had an estimate, he responded that "Sept. 3 is just the tip of the iceberg" and that "we won't know for some time."

. . . In addition to no present estimates for the possible costs of the expansions from OPM, the DoD, or HHS, there has been no research done by the United States Government Accountability Office.

Jennifer Ashley of the Public Affairs for GAO told The Christian Post via an email sent Wednesday morning that "we have not done any relevant work."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama's Sexually Dysfunctional Military On Trial

In addition, read President Obama's Army Says Christians are Worst Terrorists

Obama's 'Marriage' Lawlessness Spreads to Penn.

Just as President Obama ordered his Department of "Justice" to ignore its constitutional duty to uphold the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and as California government refused to uphold voters' decision to protect REAL marriage (leading to the Supreme Court rulings voiding democracy), now Pennsylvania officials are refusing to uphold the people's law regarding same-sex "marriage."

For background, read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

UPDATE 5/20/14: Federal judge rules Pennsylvania voters cannot define natural marriage (see article excerpts in UPDATE below)

UPDATE 8/22/13: New Mexico County Clerk Assumes Role of Judge, Initiates Same-sex 'Marriages'

-- From "Pa. officials sue to stop rogue county from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples" by Kathy Matheson, Associated Press 7/30/13

State officials asked a court to stop a rogue county from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on Tuesday, nearly a week after a clerk began granting them in violation of Pennsylvania law.

Pennsylvania is the only northeastern state without same-sex marriages or civil unions. [Montgomery County clerk D. Bruce] Hanes began issuing licenses to same-sex couples shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage of Act.

The developments come the same day that Republican Gov. Tom Corbett’s office indicated that it would defend the state’s marriage law in a separate legal challenge filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, had said earlier this month that she wouldn’t defend the state in that suit because she believes the law to be unconstitutional.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



From "Surprise Marriages in Pennsylvania and Ohio" by Matt Baume, Huffington Post 7/29/13

. . . A small county in Pennsylvania, Montgomery County, has decided to overlook the state's ban on marriage equality and start issuing licenses. Their justification? Preventing LGBT couples from marrying is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The move has thrown everyone -- activists, opponents, elected officials and jurists -- into a state of consternation. Will the state actually recognize the licenses? It's unclear.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Montco presses ahead despite state lawsuit over gay marriage" by Jessica Parks and Angela Couloumbis, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writers 7/31/13

. . . Montgomery County said it would defend Hanes. Until a court intervenes, "the Register of Wills Office will continue to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples," County Solicitor Ray McGarry said in a statement.

The lawsuit alleges that Hanes "risks causing serious and limitless harm to the public," citing "administrative and legal chaos" and couples "left to believe erroneously that they have entered into a valid marriage under the law of Pennsylvania."

The lawsuit means even more uncertainty for at least 34 couples who have received same-sex marriage licenses in Montgomery County. Typically, they have from three to 60 days to get a licensed officiant to carry out the weddings and return the certificates to the register of wills.

As of Tuesday afternoon, only six had completed their ceremonies and filed their marriage certificates. Whether those six couples are in fact married depends on whom one asks.

Hanes and the Democratic-led Montgomery County commissioners say the marriages are valid, arguing that the state constitution supersedes the 1996 Marriage Law.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pennsylvania Health Department sues county to stop issuance of marriage licenses for gay couples" by Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 7/30/13

"The clerk's actions are in direct defiance of the express policy of the commonwealth that 'marriage shall be between one man and one woman,'" wrote chief counsel Alison Taylor for the Health Department.

Mr. Hanes announced on July 23 that he would begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples. He was acting on a statement by state Attorney General Kathleen Kane that Pennsylvania's marriage laws are "wholly unconstitutional," leaving it to Mr. Corbett's general counsel, James Schultz, to defend against the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 10 gay couples.

On Tuesday, Ms. Kane's decision prompted a stern four-page letter from Mr. Schultz to her first deputy, Adrian R. King Jr., in which he accused the attorney general of abrogating her duty based on her own personal feelings.

Further, Mr. Schultz said Ms. Kane has placed any lawyer now left to defend the case at a disadvantage and that she has set "a very troubling precedent."

"This has the very real potential to compromise, among other things, the functions of the legislative and judicial branches of our government and the defense of our laws."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Montgomery County becomes ground zero for Pennsylvania's same-sex marriage debate" by Evan Brandt, Montgomery Newspapers 7/28/13

[After the June Supreme Court rulings,] Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, announced she would not defend the Commonwealth’s 17-year-old law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Standing in the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Kane announced that “I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s [law banning same-sex marriage], where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional.”

It’s a position that resonated with D. Bruce Hanes, Montgomery County’s register of wills. . . .

“Look, I took an oath and swore to uphold the Constitution,” Hanes said, “and to me that law stands in direct opposition to the guarantee of equal rights. Being married is a civil right and the Pennsylvania Constitution says I cannot discriminate in who I provide licenses to.”

Hanes, who is a Democrat and a lawyer, said that given that the language in Pennsylvania’s law mirrors the federal statute the Supreme Court recently struck down, he could not discriminate in issuing marriage licenses without violating his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Likening Hanes to President Obama for “simply ignoring a law if he doesn’t like it,” Montgomery County Republican Committee Chairman Robert Kerns issued a statement that noted “regardless of how you feel about it, until the Legislature changes the law or a court says otherwise, it is the law of the commonwealth.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Nationwide Marriage Amendment Puts Republicans to the Test



UPDATE 5/20/14: "U.S. judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban in Pa." by Angela Couloumbis and Amy Worden, Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writers

The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III marked the first and most significant to date in a series of court challenges to the state's 1996 ban.

"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them onto the ash heap of history," Jones wrote in the 39-page opinion. "By virtue of this, ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth."

Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, whose office had declined to defend the law, hailed the groundbreaking ruling.

Lawyers for Gov. Corbett, whose administration had defended the law, said they were reviewing the decision. They have 30 days to appeal.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.