Liberals' efforts to fundamentally transform America, from the land founded on freedom of religion into a tyranny of secular totalitarians, has been dealt repeated blows by the U.S. Supreme Court -- not only yesterday's blow against ObamaCare, but also:
Supremes Rule Christians Free to Pray in Jesus' Name at Government Meetings
Supremes Rule Unanimously that President Obama Can't Veto Church Leaders
Supremes Rule Unanimously that Christians are Free to Speak near Abortion Clinics
And even still, Vice President Biden Insists that Gay Agenda Trumps Religious Beliefs
For background, read Mississippi Religious Liberty Law Infuriates Liberals and also read Tennessee Democrats & Republicans Pass Religious Liberty for Schools as well as Kentucky Religious Freedom Act Enacted over Veto by Dem Governor
And for background on the ObamaCare War on Christianity, read Christians Oppose ObamaCare, Support Hobby Lobby and also read Catholics Defeat ObamaCare in Court
-- From "Supreme Court sides with religious liberty" posted at Orange County Breeze 6/30/14
The United States Supreme Court has issued its 5-4 ruling in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. that pitted the Obama Administration against closely-held corporations that did not wish to violate the religious beliefs of their owners by providing abortifacient contraceptives.
In short, in an opinion read aloud by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court sided with religious liberty and ruled that closely-held corporations can be considered persons under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA], and cannot be coerced by the federal government into act that violate the religious beliefs of the corporation’s owners.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court rules against Obama in contraception case" by Bill Mears and Tom Cohen, CNN 6/30/14
[The Supreme Court ruling] set off a frenzied partisan debate over religious and reproductive rights that will continue through the November congressional elections and beyond.
The four liberal justices appointed by Democratic presidents, including the high court's three women, opposed the ruling as a possible gateway to further religious-based challenges that limit individual choice and rights.
. . . the issue revolved around a 1994 federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which Alito's opinion said prevents the government from "taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest."
Alito wrote that the court's conservative majority rejected the argument by the Department of Health and Human Services that "the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships."
"The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs," he wrote.
. . . many [liberals] worry giving corporations religious freedom rights could affect laws on employment, safety, and civil rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Religious Liberty Wins in Court" by Grace-Marie Turner, Forbes Contributor 6/30/14
The Supreme Court today rang a victory bell for religious freedom as it ruled 5-4 that “HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion” of three closely held companies – Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties, and Mardel.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, noted that the companies have “sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.” The administration had argued that the plaintiffs were for-profit corporations and therefore couldn’t have religious beliefs.
“Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations…protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them,” the court found in citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
People would be second class citizens if, as owners of corporations, they were not allowed to exercise their religious freedom, Justice Alito said this morning from the bench in announcing the decision. The court’s decision means that Americans have religious freedom in all aspects of their lives: If you go into business and start a corporation, you do not lose your rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "A Ruling That Both Sides Can Run With" by Jeremy W. Peters And Michael D. Shear, New York Times 6/30/14
“The court has made clear today that the Obama administration’s assault on religious freedom in this case went too far,” said Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, one of several conservative Republicans weighing a White House run. “But this assault will not stop in our courts, in our schools and in the halls of power.”
. . . Conservatives have prevailed on legal grounds by making their arguments about the First Amendment. And many Republicans signaled Monday that they would continue to fight Mr. Obama and Democrats on the broader principle of religious freedom.
The narrative that the president and his policies favor the power of the government at the expense of the individual is an especially potent one among conservatives.
Yet even as conservatives celebrated coming out on the winning side of a divisive social issue, their court victory may have also handed Democrats an issue that will turn out liberal voters in the fall.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Re-Establishing Religious Liberty Post-Hobby Lobby" by Carmel Martin and Joshua Field, Center for American Progress 6/30/14
. . . the principle of religious liberty is being used as a sword by a range of conservative groups currently engaged in an organized effort to discriminate and impose their doctrinal views on a pluralistic nation.
Today’s 5–4 ruling provides clear evidence of how the conservative Roberts Court has misinterpreted the free exercise of religion to the point of absurdity . . .
[It is time] for Americans to consider legislative fixes to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, and state-based RFRA-like legislation that provides for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws.
To read the entire liberals' "call to action alert" above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hill Democrats plot response to Hobby Lobby" by Paige Winfield Cunningham And Seung Min Kim, Politico 6/30/14
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin [D-IL] says he’s introducing a bill requiring corporations that are newly exempted from the contraception mandate to disclose their coverage policy to employees and job applicants.
But there were few specifics Monday from Democrats on what other measures would entail, although one senior Senate Democratic aide said a legislative response could come in July or September — right before the midterm elections.
Democrats don’t appear to see many political downsides to taking on the decision. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out an email shortly after the ruling fundraising off it, and several vulnerable red-state Democrats up for reelection were quick to criticize the decision, even though they’re typically reluctant to talk about other parts of the health care law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hillary Clinton blasts Hobby Lobby ruling" by Katie Glueck, Politico 6/30/14
“It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means the corporation’s … [‘closely held’] employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and, of course, denying women the right to contraceptives as part of a health care plan is exactly that,” she said. “I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction.”
. . . she argued that the Hobby Lobby decision is a setback for women’s rights, and at one point called it a step toward a “really bad slippery slope,” noting that some employers don’t believe in, for example, blood transfusions.
Asked about a measure [RFRA] signed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, tied to protecting religious beliefs under federal law, Clinton said it was authorized “because, at that point, there were legitimate cases of discrimination against religions. The people who wanted to build a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque in a community and they fit into the zoning, but the community was saying, ‘We don’t want one of those in our community’.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Ruling Ignites Debate Over Religious-Freedom Law" by Kristina Peterson, Wall Street Journal 6/30/14
The high court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case refocused attention on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed Congress overwhelmingly in 1993, with the support of some lawmakers still serving in both the House and Senate. The statute requires federal laws to accommodate individuals' religious beliefs unless there is a compelling interest at stake that can't be attained through other means.
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the lead Republican sponsor of the religious-freedom law when it passed the Senate in a 97-3 vote, said Monday's decision affirmed Congress' decision to pass the law in the first place.
"As the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened," Mr. Hatch said in a statement. "That's why RFRA passed Congress overwhelmingly more than 20 years ago."
The bill passed the House on a voice vote and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read For Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, it's Satan vs. God
Showing posts with label citizenship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citizenship. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
Friday, November 01, 2013
'Gay Marriage:' Hawaii Government Oppose Citizens
Shortly after over 10,000 citizens gathered at the Capitol demanding preservation of marriage as one man and one woman, the Hawaii Senate passed a bill to redefine marriage and unconstitutionally discriminate against Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. Today, the state House continues hearing testimony from thousands of citizens, and yet the mainstream media is reporting that Democrats, who control the legislature and governorship, will certainly pass same-sex marriage.
For background, read Hawaii Civil Unions NOT Marriage, Federal Judge Rules and also read Lesbians Find Christians to Sue in Hawaii
And read of the 14 other states that have redefined marriage.
-- From "House committee hearing on gay marriage to resume" by Oskar Garcia, Associated Press 11/1/13
A Hawaii House committee hearing on gay marriage took a break early Friday after a 14-hour session, and will resume later in the morning to hear testimony from more than 4,000 people who have yet to speak.
The House judiciary and finance committees are considering a bill passed by the state Senate to legalize gay marriage. The legislation is the centerpiece of a special session called by Gov. Neil Abercrombie, with a goal of passing a bill so same-sex couples married in Hawaii can receive federal benefits as granted by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year.
With two minutes allotted for each speaker, the rest of public testimony could take as much as 139 hours — nearly six days if the hearing was to run continuously. Not all testifiers have been present when their number was called, but many waited in the Hawaii Capitol for several hours for their turn to speak.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hawaii Senate passes bill to legalize gay marriage" by Treena Shapiro, Reuters 10/31/13
The 20-4 vote in favor of the bill, with three Democrats joining the state Senate's lone Republican to oppose the measure, came two days after the start of a special session called by Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie to take up the legislation. One senator was absent for the vote.
If the bill is approved, as expected, by the state House of Representatives - where Democrats outnumber Republicans 44-7 - Hawaii would become the 15th vote to make it legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Abercrombie, who served more than two decades in the U.S. House of Representatives before running for governor in 2010, signed a same-sex civil unions bill into law two years ago and has since been a vocal proponent of gay marriage.
His predecessor, Republican Linda Lingle, vetoed a civil unions bill in 2010.
In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled it was discriminatory to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Opponents of Same Sex Marriage Overwhelm the Capitol, but Bill Easily Passes Senate Judiciary Committee" posted at Hawaii Reporter 10/29/13
As many as 12,000 people on three islands turned out Monday, October 28, at a 5-hour rally to protest Senate Bill 1, a bill that would legalize same sex marriage in Hawaii.
Coordinated by Christian churches and family advocacy groups, the rallies were timed with the opening day of the special legislative session called by Gov. Neil Abercrombie to pass a same sex marriage bill before the end of the year.
The massive crowd chanted and waved signs that said “Let the people decide,” demanding legislators allow a public vote on the issue, and a number of religious and political leaders spoke at the event held in the capitol rotunda.
People stood on line for hours to testify before the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee on the gay marriage bill. More than 400 people testified in person after 3,459 people sent testimony in advance and hundreds more submitted testimony after the deadline or in person.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Experts say Hawaii’s gay marriage bill worst at protecting religious freedom" by Malia Zimmermann, Hawaii Reporter 10/30/13
While SB1 protects religious clergy from liability for refusing to solemnize a same sex marriage, the legislation offers no exemption to non-clergy members, such as judges, [Civil rights attorney Jim] Hochberg said.
SB1 also fails to protect religious organizations from liability if they decline requests to use their properties for same sex celebrations, Hochberg said, because to qualify for the protection, a church must “not make its facilities or grounds available to the general public for solemnization of any marriage celebration for a profit.”
Five noted law professors told Hawaii lawmakers this week they agree SB 1 will infringe on religious liberties, and the bill should be amended.
While the professors expressed support for same-sex marriage, they warned careless or overly aggressive drafting could create a whole new set of problems for the religious liberty of those believers who cannot conscientiously participate in implementing the new regime.
“The gain for human liberty will be severely compromised if same-sex couples now force religious dissenters to violate their conscience in the same way that those dissenters, when they had the power to do so, used to force same-sex couples to hide their sexuality,” the law professors wrote.
“A bill that addresses only solemnization would do less to protect religious liberty than any other state that has enacted same-sex marriage by legislation,” the professors wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Hawaii Ends Prayer in Senate - Bows to ACLU
Fn addition, read Homosexualists Say Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty
For background, read Hawaii Civil Unions NOT Marriage, Federal Judge Rules and also read Lesbians Find Christians to Sue in Hawaii
And read of the 14 other states that have redefined marriage.
-- From "House committee hearing on gay marriage to resume" by Oskar Garcia, Associated Press 11/1/13
A Hawaii House committee hearing on gay marriage took a break early Friday after a 14-hour session, and will resume later in the morning to hear testimony from more than 4,000 people who have yet to speak.
The House judiciary and finance committees are considering a bill passed by the state Senate to legalize gay marriage. The legislation is the centerpiece of a special session called by Gov. Neil Abercrombie, with a goal of passing a bill so same-sex couples married in Hawaii can receive federal benefits as granted by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year.
With two minutes allotted for each speaker, the rest of public testimony could take as much as 139 hours — nearly six days if the hearing was to run continuously. Not all testifiers have been present when their number was called, but many waited in the Hawaii Capitol for several hours for their turn to speak.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Hawaii Senate passes bill to legalize gay marriage" by Treena Shapiro, Reuters 10/31/13
The 20-4 vote in favor of the bill, with three Democrats joining the state Senate's lone Republican to oppose the measure, came two days after the start of a special session called by Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie to take up the legislation. One senator was absent for the vote.
If the bill is approved, as expected, by the state House of Representatives - where Democrats outnumber Republicans 44-7 - Hawaii would become the 15th vote to make it legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Abercrombie, who served more than two decades in the U.S. House of Representatives before running for governor in 2010, signed a same-sex civil unions bill into law two years ago and has since been a vocal proponent of gay marriage.
His predecessor, Republican Linda Lingle, vetoed a civil unions bill in 2010.
In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled it was discriminatory to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Opponents of Same Sex Marriage Overwhelm the Capitol, but Bill Easily Passes Senate Judiciary Committee" posted at Hawaii Reporter 10/29/13
As many as 12,000 people on three islands turned out Monday, October 28, at a 5-hour rally to protest Senate Bill 1, a bill that would legalize same sex marriage in Hawaii.
Coordinated by Christian churches and family advocacy groups, the rallies were timed with the opening day of the special legislative session called by Gov. Neil Abercrombie to pass a same sex marriage bill before the end of the year.
The massive crowd chanted and waved signs that said “Let the people decide,” demanding legislators allow a public vote on the issue, and a number of religious and political leaders spoke at the event held in the capitol rotunda.
People stood on line for hours to testify before the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee on the gay marriage bill. More than 400 people testified in person after 3,459 people sent testimony in advance and hundreds more submitted testimony after the deadline or in person.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Experts say Hawaii’s gay marriage bill worst at protecting religious freedom" by Malia Zimmermann, Hawaii Reporter 10/30/13
While SB1 protects religious clergy from liability for refusing to solemnize a same sex marriage, the legislation offers no exemption to non-clergy members, such as judges, [Civil rights attorney Jim] Hochberg said.
SB1 also fails to protect religious organizations from liability if they decline requests to use their properties for same sex celebrations, Hochberg said, because to qualify for the protection, a church must “not make its facilities or grounds available to the general public for solemnization of any marriage celebration for a profit.”
Five noted law professors told Hawaii lawmakers this week they agree SB 1 will infringe on religious liberties, and the bill should be amended.
While the professors expressed support for same-sex marriage, they warned careless or overly aggressive drafting could create a whole new set of problems for the religious liberty of those believers who cannot conscientiously participate in implementing the new regime.
“The gain for human liberty will be severely compromised if same-sex couples now force religious dissenters to violate their conscience in the same way that those dissenters, when they had the power to do so, used to force same-sex couples to hide their sexuality,” the law professors wrote.
“A bill that addresses only solemnization would do less to protect religious liberty than any other state that has enacted same-sex marriage by legislation,” the professors wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Hawaii Ends Prayer in Senate - Bows to ACLU
Fn addition, read Homosexualists Say Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Obama Creates Homosexual Path to Citizenship
President Obama, through Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, has proclaimed illegal aliens who demonstrate a vaguely-defined homosexual partnership with U.S. citizens be deemed so-called family members and granted the right to live in the U.S. indefinitely.
-- From "U.S. immigration to treat same-sex partners as relatives" by Ronnie Cohen, Reuters 9/29/12
The Obama administration has directed immigration officials to recognize same-sex partners as family members in deportation cases, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Pelosi in a letter that she had ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify its field offices "that the interpretation of the phrase 'family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners."
Immigration officials last year said they would consider same-sex partnerships as family relations in deciding whether to deport undocumented immigrants.
But 83 members of Congress led by Pelosi and Jerrold Nadler of New York criticized the government for unevenly applying the directive, and they pressed for written guidelines.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay couples may get reprieve in deportation cases" by The Associated Press 9/29/12
"I have directed ICE to disseminate written guidance to the field that the interpretation of the phrase 'family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners," Napolitano wrote, adding that the decision to grant reprieves still would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The instructions do not mean that foreigners who are married to Americans of the same sex will be eligible for green cards or citizenship, as are immigrants with opposite sex spouses. The Obama administration is continuing to enforce a 1996 law [DOMA] that prohibits the government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even as it opposes it in court and takes gay relationships into account when evaluating deportation cases.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that advocates tighter immigration policies, said that even though the administration says it is complying with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] by not allowing citizens to sponsor same-sex spouses for green cards, the pending guidance for ICE officials to review the family ties of same-sex couples suggests otherwise.
"It's a camel's nose under the tent," Krikorian said. "If you get same-sex couples approved in terms of immigration, you can use that as an incremental approach to getting changes in other areas, such as in tax policy."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
"Our nation is served when loving families are kept together. We need to ... relegate DOMA to the dustbin of history."For background, read Obama Enacts Same-sex 'Marriage' via Immigration and also read Obama Defeats Marriage, Again - Congress Responds and read the saga of President Obama's War on Marriage (DOMA) via Judges
-- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco Democrat
-- From "U.S. immigration to treat same-sex partners as relatives" by Ronnie Cohen, Reuters 9/29/12
The Obama administration has directed immigration officials to recognize same-sex partners as family members in deportation cases, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Pelosi in a letter that she had ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify its field offices "that the interpretation of the phrase 'family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners."
Immigration officials last year said they would consider same-sex partnerships as family relations in deciding whether to deport undocumented immigrants.
But 83 members of Congress led by Pelosi and Jerrold Nadler of New York criticized the government for unevenly applying the directive, and they pressed for written guidelines.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay couples may get reprieve in deportation cases" by The Associated Press 9/29/12
"I have directed ICE to disseminate written guidance to the field that the interpretation of the phrase 'family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners," Napolitano wrote, adding that the decision to grant reprieves still would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The instructions do not mean that foreigners who are married to Americans of the same sex will be eligible for green cards or citizenship, as are immigrants with opposite sex spouses. The Obama administration is continuing to enforce a 1996 law [DOMA] that prohibits the government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even as it opposes it in court and takes gay relationships into account when evaluating deportation cases.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that advocates tighter immigration policies, said that even though the administration says it is complying with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] by not allowing citizens to sponsor same-sex spouses for green cards, the pending guidance for ICE officials to review the family ties of same-sex couples suggests otherwise.
"It's a camel's nose under the tent," Krikorian said. "If you get same-sex couples approved in terms of immigration, you can use that as an incremental approach to getting changes in other areas, such as in tax policy."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Obama Enacts Same-sex 'Marriage' via Immigration
President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder set aside a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling to deport a 'gay spouse' illegal immigrant. The Board's ruling was based on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but because Obama considers DOMA unconstitutional (while lacking constitutional authority for such a pronouncement), Holder's Dept. of Justice has de facto halted enforcement of this federal law.
For background on DOMA, read White House Torpedoed Marriage from Start
For further background on today's story (below), click these headlines for previous articles:
Obama Pushes U.S. Citizenship for Foreign Homosexuals
Immigration Reform = National Same-sex Unions
Obama Legalizes Same-sex 'Marriage' via Passports
UPDATE 12/7/11: Federal Judge Terry A. Bain issued landmark ruling paving way for thousands of undocumented immigrants in same-sex "marriages" avoid deportation
UPDATE 7/15/11: Judge delays deportation for gay Costa Rican man, David Gonzalez, married to a U.S. citizen
-- From "Deportation of same-sex spouse halted" by The Associated Press 5/7/11
A dancer from Venezuela who married an American man in a same-sex ceremony had his deportation placed on hold yesterday, one day after Attorney General Eric Holder set aside an immigration ruling in a similar case.
Henry Velandia, 27, a professional salsa dancer from Caracas, wants to be allowed to remain in the United States as the spouse of US citizen Josh Vandiver, 29. The couple live in New Jersey but were married last year in Connecticut, where same-sex marriage is legal.
Yesterday, an immigration judge in Newark adjourned Velandia’s case until December, citing Holder’s decision a day earlier. In that case, Holder set aside a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling allowing the deportation to Ireland of Paul Wilson Dorman, a gay man illegally in the United States is in a civil union with his partner.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge Gives Immigrant in Same-Sex Marriage a Reprieve From Deportation" by Julia Preston, New York Times 5/6/11
[This is] an unusual signal this week from the Obama administration that it is exploring legal avenues for recognizing same-sex marriages in immigration cases.
Citing the move by the attorney general, Judge Alberto J. Riefkohl of immigration court in Newark postponed Mr. Velandia’s deportation until December at the earliest. The judge said he wanted to allow time for the attorney general and the appeals court to work out whether a gay partner might be eligible under some circumstances for residency.
Rachel B. Tiven, the executive director of Immigration Equality, a legal group that advocates for gay immigrants, said the change of course in the two cases had sent “a signal of openness” from the administration.
Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the attorney general had “instructed an immigration court to ignore DOMA in future rulings.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge delays ruling in deportation of gay N.J. couple, allows man to stay in U.S." by Megan DeMarco, Statehouse Bureau, The Star-Ledger 5/6/11
Valandia will have to appear in court again on Dec. 16, but in the interim can stay in their Princeton home.
"It's the best outcome that we could have hoped for," said gay rights lawyer Lavi Soloway, who added that the law could change by December.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge halts deportation proceedings for gay Venezuelan national" by Chris Johnson, Washington Blade 5/6/11
“Today we have won an important victory by stopping the deportation of Henry Velandia,” [his lawyer Lavi] Soloway said. “The Immigration Judge has demonstrated that it is appropriate to proceed with caution when a marriage-based green card petition is pending precisely because the law and policy impacting lesbian and gay bi-national couples is in a state of flux. The Immigration Judge has acted to protect Josh and Henry from being torn apart at a time when new developments suggest that potential solutions for bi-national same-sex couples may be on the horizon.”
According to Soloway. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Assistant Chief Counsel David Cheng, who’s prosecuting the case on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, agreed to the adjournment.
“The administration must act now to institute a moratorium on all deportations of spouses of gay and lesbian Americans to ensure that all same-sex bi-national couples are protected until the fate of DOMA is determined by Congress or the Supreme Court,” Soloway said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background on DOMA, read White House Torpedoed Marriage from Start
For further background on today's story (below), click these headlines for previous articles:
Obama Pushes U.S. Citizenship for Foreign Homosexuals
Immigration Reform = National Same-sex Unions
Obama Legalizes Same-sex 'Marriage' via Passports
UPDATE 12/7/11: Federal Judge Terry A. Bain issued landmark ruling paving way for thousands of undocumented immigrants in same-sex "marriages" avoid deportation
UPDATE 7/15/11: Judge delays deportation for gay Costa Rican man, David Gonzalez, married to a U.S. citizen
-- From "Deportation of same-sex spouse halted" by The Associated Press 5/7/11
A dancer from Venezuela who married an American man in a same-sex ceremony had his deportation placed on hold yesterday, one day after Attorney General Eric Holder set aside an immigration ruling in a similar case.
Henry Velandia, 27, a professional salsa dancer from Caracas, wants to be allowed to remain in the United States as the spouse of US citizen Josh Vandiver, 29. The couple live in New Jersey but were married last year in Connecticut, where same-sex marriage is legal.
Yesterday, an immigration judge in Newark adjourned Velandia’s case until December, citing Holder’s decision a day earlier. In that case, Holder set aside a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling allowing the deportation to Ireland of Paul Wilson Dorman, a gay man illegally in the United States is in a civil union with his partner.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge Gives Immigrant in Same-Sex Marriage a Reprieve From Deportation" by Julia Preston, New York Times 5/6/11
[This is] an unusual signal this week from the Obama administration that it is exploring legal avenues for recognizing same-sex marriages in immigration cases.
Citing the move by the attorney general, Judge Alberto J. Riefkohl of immigration court in Newark postponed Mr. Velandia’s deportation until December at the earliest. The judge said he wanted to allow time for the attorney general and the appeals court to work out whether a gay partner might be eligible under some circumstances for residency.
Rachel B. Tiven, the executive director of Immigration Equality, a legal group that advocates for gay immigrants, said the change of course in the two cases had sent “a signal of openness” from the administration.
Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the attorney general had “instructed an immigration court to ignore DOMA in future rulings.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge delays ruling in deportation of gay N.J. couple, allows man to stay in U.S." by Megan DeMarco, Statehouse Bureau, The Star-Ledger 5/6/11
Valandia will have to appear in court again on Dec. 16, but in the interim can stay in their Princeton home.
"It's the best outcome that we could have hoped for," said gay rights lawyer Lavi Soloway, who added that the law could change by December.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge halts deportation proceedings for gay Venezuelan national" by Chris Johnson, Washington Blade 5/6/11
“Today we have won an important victory by stopping the deportation of Henry Velandia,” [his lawyer Lavi] Soloway said. “The Immigration Judge has demonstrated that it is appropriate to proceed with caution when a marriage-based green card petition is pending precisely because the law and policy impacting lesbian and gay bi-national couples is in a state of flux. The Immigration Judge has acted to protect Josh and Henry from being torn apart at a time when new developments suggest that potential solutions for bi-national same-sex couples may be on the horizon.”
According to Soloway. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Assistant Chief Counsel David Cheng, who’s prosecuting the case on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, agreed to the adjournment.
“The administration must act now to institute a moratorium on all deportations of spouses of gay and lesbian Americans to ensure that all same-sex bi-national couples are protected until the fate of DOMA is determined by Congress or the Supreme Court,” Soloway said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Voters' Same-sex 'Marriage' Desires Ignored
From one state to another, including at the federal level, even though it's the voters choice to defend marriage, too many elected officials refuse to uphold those choices. Voters in California passed a marriage amendment to their constitution, but who will defend it against the onslaught of homosexualist court challenges?
For background, read Homosexual Judge Rules for Same-sex 'Marriage' in California and also read Will Supreme Court Outlaw Christianity?
UPDATE 11/17/11: California Supreme Court says Christians can defend marriage against homosexualists' legal challenge
-- From "California county renews gay marriage fight" by Lisa Leff, Associated Press 2/25/11
California's Imperial County renewed its effort to defend the state's gay marriage ban by asking Friday to join an attempt to overturn the court ruling that struck down the measure known as Proposition 8.
Sponsors of the voter-approved gay marriage ban so far have taken the lead in defending the voter-approved law in court, after former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to do so.
But the move by sponsors has been questioned because they are not elected government representatives, which threatens the viability of their case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Imperial County's newly elected clerk-recorder, Chuck Storey, on Friday asked the 9th Circuit panel handling the appeal to allow him to step in as the primary defendant if the coalition of religious and legal groups that sponsored Proposition 8 is removed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Imperial County clerk seeks to defend Prop 8" posted at KGO-TV San Francisco, CA 2/25/11
Clerk Chuck Storey, who took office in January, argued in a brief submitted to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his participation is "appropriate and necessary" to enable the court to decide the constitutionality of the voter initiative.
The backers of Proposition 8 are seeking to appeal U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling last year that the measure passed by state voters in 2008 violates the U.S. Constitution.
The federal court has asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the state law would allow the sponsors to appeal, and it could take the state high court at least several months to issue a decision on that issue.
The clerk said in a statement Friday, "I took an oath of office to uphold the California Constitution, and Proposition 8 is part of the Constitution."
Storey is represented by lawyers from Riverside County-based Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a nonprofit legal group.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "County clerk launches defense of Prop 8 traditional marriage" by Bob Unruh © 2011 WorldNetDaily 2/27/11
The dispute over "standing" is critical in the battle over the voter-approved definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman because the then-attorney general, Jerry Brown, who now is governor, and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, both refused to fulfill their state office obligations and defend what now is one section of the state constitution.
Those who organized the petition through which voters adopted the definition have been working with a number of law firms in defense of the law, but the U.S. District Court judge, Vaugh Walker, an open homosexual, who struck down the law, raised the question about "standing."
That would involve the question of exactly who has the right to mount a defense of the law, and Walker suggested that since the state, which is the defendant in the lawsuit, refused to provide a defense, the case essentially is finished.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Homosexual Judge Rules for Same-sex 'Marriage' in California and also read Will Supreme Court Outlaw Christianity?
UPDATE 11/17/11: California Supreme Court says Christians can defend marriage against homosexualists' legal challenge
-- From "California county renews gay marriage fight" by Lisa Leff, Associated Press 2/25/11
California's Imperial County renewed its effort to defend the state's gay marriage ban by asking Friday to join an attempt to overturn the court ruling that struck down the measure known as Proposition 8.
Sponsors of the voter-approved gay marriage ban so far have taken the lead in defending the voter-approved law in court, after former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to do so.
But the move by sponsors has been questioned because they are not elected government representatives, which threatens the viability of their case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Imperial County's newly elected clerk-recorder, Chuck Storey, on Friday asked the 9th Circuit panel handling the appeal to allow him to step in as the primary defendant if the coalition of religious and legal groups that sponsored Proposition 8 is removed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Imperial County clerk seeks to defend Prop 8" posted at KGO-TV San Francisco, CA 2/25/11
Clerk Chuck Storey, who took office in January, argued in a brief submitted to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his participation is "appropriate and necessary" to enable the court to decide the constitutionality of the voter initiative.
The backers of Proposition 8 are seeking to appeal U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling last year that the measure passed by state voters in 2008 violates the U.S. Constitution.
The federal court has asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the state law would allow the sponsors to appeal, and it could take the state high court at least several months to issue a decision on that issue.
The clerk said in a statement Friday, "I took an oath of office to uphold the California Constitution, and Proposition 8 is part of the Constitution."
Storey is represented by lawyers from Riverside County-based Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a nonprofit legal group.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "County clerk launches defense of Prop 8 traditional marriage" by Bob Unruh © 2011 WorldNetDaily 2/27/11
The dispute over "standing" is critical in the battle over the voter-approved definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman because the then-attorney general, Jerry Brown, who now is governor, and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, both refused to fulfill their state office obligations and defend what now is one section of the state constitution.
Those who organized the petition through which voters adopted the definition have been working with a number of law firms in defense of the law, but the U.S. District Court judge, Vaugh Walker, an open homosexual, who struck down the law, raised the question about "standing."
That would involve the question of exactly who has the right to mount a defense of the law, and Walker suggested that since the state, which is the defendant in the lawsuit, refused to provide a defense, the case essentially is finished.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Moral Aspect Wanes in Calif. Marriage Debate
While Republican politicians increasingly shy away from hot-button cultural issues (click here), the liberal mainstream media shift the same-sex 'marriage' debate from morals to secular democracy.
UPDATE 8/17/10: Why conservatives have abandoned The Culture War (commentary)
-- From "Proposition 8 backers unhappy with federal judge's ruling" By Mike Anton, Los Angeles Times 8/13/10
What was once a moral argument has morphed into a debate over the democratic process and the propriety of judges overturning laws approved by voters. It raises one of the oldest conflicts in the nation — the tension between "majority rule" and a Constitution designed to protect the rights of individuals against the majority.
Judge Walker ruled in a 136-page decision that "moral disapproval" of same-sex marriages wasn't a valid reason to deny gay men and lesbians their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Some liken the court's action on Proposition 8 to what happened to California's Proposition 187, which would have cut state services to illegal immigrants. Approved by voters in 1994, it too was invalidated as unconstitutional by a federal judge.
"Why should I waste my time voting if the opposition can find one judge to overturn the will of the people," said Bill Petersen, 66, of Tustin. "It doesn't make sense."
Morality was the issue when voters went to the polls. But it isn't now . . .
. . . the ruling on Proposition 8 "opens up the door for more like this. Liberals are deciding what should happen in our world."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 8/17/10: Why conservatives have abandoned The Culture War (commentary)
-- From "Proposition 8 backers unhappy with federal judge's ruling" By Mike Anton, Los Angeles Times 8/13/10
What was once a moral argument has morphed into a debate over the democratic process and the propriety of judges overturning laws approved by voters. It raises one of the oldest conflicts in the nation — the tension between "majority rule" and a Constitution designed to protect the rights of individuals against the majority.
Judge Walker ruled in a 136-page decision that "moral disapproval" of same-sex marriages wasn't a valid reason to deny gay men and lesbians their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Some liken the court's action on Proposition 8 to what happened to California's Proposition 187, which would have cut state services to illegal immigrants. Approved by voters in 1994, it too was invalidated as unconstitutional by a federal judge.
"Why should I waste my time voting if the opposition can find one judge to overturn the will of the people," said Bill Petersen, 66, of Tustin. "It doesn't make sense."
Morality was the issue when voters went to the polls. But it isn't now . . .
. . . the ruling on Proposition 8 "opens up the door for more like this. Liberals are deciding what should happen in our world."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Memorial Day 2010 "For You"
Today, most Americans remember "the sacrifices of those who fell in military service to the country."
-- From "Silence, ceremonies to mark sacrifice of military" by the CNN Wire Staff 5/31/10
Vice President Joe Biden will take the place of President Obama for the traditional wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington, the most prestigious military cemetery in the country, where many of the soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried.
Obama is in Chicago, Illinois, spending the night with his family at their home for the first time in more than a year. He will mark the holiday with remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, about an hour outside Chicago.
Back in Washington, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial will officially recognize six names added to the black granite wall in May.
The addition brings the number of men and women who were killed or remain missing in action to 58,267.
. . . the National Moment of Remembrance [3:00pm eastern time] -- established by Congress -- asks Americans to stop whatever they are doing and observe a minute's silence. The time was chosen because it is when most Americans are enjoying their freedoms on the national holiday . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Silence, ceremonies to mark sacrifice of military" by the CNN Wire Staff 5/31/10
Vice President Joe Biden will take the place of President Obama for the traditional wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington, the most prestigious military cemetery in the country, where many of the soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried.
Obama is in Chicago, Illinois, spending the night with his family at their home for the first time in more than a year. He will mark the holiday with remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, about an hour outside Chicago.
Back in Washington, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial will officially recognize six names added to the black granite wall in May.
The addition brings the number of men and women who were killed or remain missing in action to 58,267.
. . . the National Moment of Remembrance [3:00pm eastern time] -- established by Congress -- asks Americans to stop whatever they are doing and observe a minute's silence. The time was chosen because it is when most Americans are enjoying their freedoms on the national holiday . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Supreme Court Hears Gay Bullying of Traditionalists
To counter public support of traditional marriage, Homosexualists' track record shows reliance on intimidation tactics, threats and violence against citizens on record opposing Gay Agenda, as exhibited in Massachusetts, California, Arkansas, etc.
UPDATE 4/28/10: LA Times claims Justice Scalia shows sarcasm toward traditionalists
-- From "Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures" by Janet I. Tu, Seattle Times staff reporter 4/25/10
The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public.
The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters last year unsuccessfully sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants "everything but marriage" benefits to gay and lesbian couples.
Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed.
Some gay-rights supporters had requested the names and said they would post them on the Internet. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the state's Public Records Act.
The Supreme Court, which hears arguments in the case on Wednesday, is expected to decide whether disclosing the names would violate the signers' First Amendment rights.
If the court rules it does, that would likely keep private not only Referendum 71 petitions but all referendum and initiative petitions in this state — and potentially those in two dozen other states that allow citizens to put measures on the ballot.
If the court says petition signers' names are public — especially in cases where there's the potential for harassment — it might chill people's willingness to take part in the referendum and initiative process . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 4/28/10: LA Times claims Justice Scalia shows sarcasm toward traditionalists
-- From "Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures" by Janet I. Tu, Seattle Times staff reporter 4/25/10
The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public.
The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters last year unsuccessfully sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants "everything but marriage" benefits to gay and lesbian couples.
Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed.
Some gay-rights supporters had requested the names and said they would post them on the Internet. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the state's Public Records Act.
The Supreme Court, which hears arguments in the case on Wednesday, is expected to decide whether disclosing the names would violate the signers' First Amendment rights.
If the court rules it does, that would likely keep private not only Referendum 71 petitions but all referendum and initiative petitions in this state — and potentially those in two dozen other states that allow citizens to put measures on the ballot.
If the court says petition signers' names are public — especially in cases where there's the potential for harassment — it might chill people's willingness to take part in the referendum and initiative process . . .
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Tea Parties = GOP Takeover
Across the country, they are signing up to be Republican precinct leaders . . . which comes with the ability to vote for the party executives who endorse candidates, approve platforms and decide where the party spends money.
-- From "In Power Push, Movement Sees Base in G.O.P." by Kate Zernike, New York Times 1/14/10
A new group called the National Precinct Alliance says it has a coordinator in nearly every state to recruit Tea Party activists to fill the positions and has already swelled the number of like-minded members in Republican Party committees in Arizona and Nevada. Its mantra is this: take the precinct, take the state, take the party — and force it to nominate conservatives rather than people they see as liberals in Republican clothing.
The Tea Party movement, named after the original tax revolt in 1773, might be better described as a diverse, rambunctious and Internet-connected network of groups, powered by grass-roots anxiety about the economy, bailouts and increasing government involvement in health care. At one extreme are militia members who have shown up at meetings wearing guns and suggesting that institutions like the Federal Reserve be eliminated. At the other are those like Ms. Przybylski, who describes herself as “just a stay-at-home mom” who became agitated about the federal stimulus package.
And if the Democrats are big-government socialists, the Republicans, in the Tea Party mind, are enablers.
. . . a growing number of activists argue that the best way to translate anger into influence is to infiltrate the Republican establishment (Democrats being, for the average Tea Partier, beyond redemption).
The defining experience for many Tea Party groups was the special election in the 23rd Congressional District of New York in November, where party leaders chose a candidate whom conservatives viewed as a Republican in name only — she supported same-sex marriage, abortion rights and the federal stimulus package. After activists flooded the district to support a conservative third-party candidate, the Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat, who won.
Conservatives took the Republican retreat as a victory, but also saw the power of the party structure in deciding who the candidates will be. The rallying cry for more local involvement has been “No more NY-23’s.”
The precinct strategy, like the Tea Party movement itself, has spread via the Internet, on sites like Resistnet.com. A National Tea Party Convention in Nashville next month will feature seminars on how to take over starting at the precinct level.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "In Power Push, Movement Sees Base in G.O.P." by Kate Zernike, New York Times 1/14/10
A new group called the National Precinct Alliance says it has a coordinator in nearly every state to recruit Tea Party activists to fill the positions and has already swelled the number of like-minded members in Republican Party committees in Arizona and Nevada. Its mantra is this: take the precinct, take the state, take the party — and force it to nominate conservatives rather than people they see as liberals in Republican clothing.
The Tea Party movement, named after the original tax revolt in 1773, might be better described as a diverse, rambunctious and Internet-connected network of groups, powered by grass-roots anxiety about the economy, bailouts and increasing government involvement in health care. At one extreme are militia members who have shown up at meetings wearing guns and suggesting that institutions like the Federal Reserve be eliminated. At the other are those like Ms. Przybylski, who describes herself as “just a stay-at-home mom” who became agitated about the federal stimulus package.
And if the Democrats are big-government socialists, the Republicans, in the Tea Party mind, are enablers.
. . . a growing number of activists argue that the best way to translate anger into influence is to infiltrate the Republican establishment (Democrats being, for the average Tea Partier, beyond redemption).
The defining experience for many Tea Party groups was the special election in the 23rd Congressional District of New York in November, where party leaders chose a candidate whom conservatives viewed as a Republican in name only — she supported same-sex marriage, abortion rights and the federal stimulus package. After activists flooded the district to support a conservative third-party candidate, the Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat, who won.
Conservatives took the Republican retreat as a victory, but also saw the power of the party structure in deciding who the candidates will be. The rallying cry for more local involvement has been “No more NY-23’s.”
The precinct strategy, like the Tea Party movement itself, has spread via the Internet, on sites like Resistnet.com. A National Tea Party Convention in Nashville next month will feature seminars on how to take over starting at the precinct level.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Iowa Library Defies Parents to Keep Sex in Library
A teen sex magazine will stay on the shelves at the Ames Public Library despite a petition signed by more than 100 parents objecting to the publication.-- From "Teen Sex Magazine to Stay on Shelves at Iowa Library" Associated Press 11/22/09
The Ames Library Board voted 6-1 to support library Director Art Weeks' recommendation to keep the magazine Sex, Etc., in the teen section.
From "Trustees to decide fate of Sex, Etc." by Jennifer Meyer, Staff Writer, The Tribune (Ames, Iowa) 11/18/09
Joyce Bannantine presented a petition with 118 signatures to the Library Board of Trustees last month objecting to the open display in the teen area and offering free copies of the magazine Sex, Etc.
The magazine is written for teens by teens under the oversight of Answer, a national sexuality organization at Rutgers University.
“We get this journal Sex, Etc. to provide authoritative information that teens would likely be curious about,” Library Director Art Weeks said.
Sex, Etc. is displayed in a stand with about a dozen other magazines. Teens can also take home for free one of the 10 extra copies the library subscribes to for $15.
“Kids might not intuitively surmise that we have this information, so we wanted to make sure to communicate to them, ‘Yes, this information is available here,’” Weeks said. “The other thing is that this is a topic they may not always feel comfortable going to the librarian or information desk and requesting information, so we make it available for them to get without having an adult intermediary.”
. . . an article describing lesbian sex, for example, may be “putting ideas into their heads that some of them may not have even thought about yet. And then, whoa, this is being thrown at them” by displaying it where teens who are not actively seeking that information might find it, Bannantine said.
Weeks recommended to the Library Board of Trustees to continue its display and distribution of Sex, Etc. based on principals of the American Library Association and Ames library to promote access without age restrictions.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
American Moms Speak, Liberal Media Ignores
Average mothers across America speak out in this video about what the liberal media just can't understand (or refuse to acknowledge): We're concerned for our children and grandchildren as the government tries to take the place of God.
.
.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Illinois Pro-abortion Congressmen Snub Citizens' Public Questions
A few average moms organized a town hall meeting for Senator Dick Durbin and representatives Mark Kirk (R-IL10) and Melissa Bean (D-IL8). These public servants didn't show up, but voters asked questions of their surrogates.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Senate Considers U.S. Citizenship for Foreign Homosexuals
Senate hearings were held yesterday by Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) on his bill S. 424, now co-sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), to provide "permanent resident status" for alien partners of American homosexuals as if they are married.
UPDATE 6/11/09: H.R. 2709 companion bill moves through House
Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Durbin & Burris and also click here to E-mail your congressman
-- From "Bill Proposes Immigration Rights for Gay Couples" by Julia Preston, New York Times, 6/2/09
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Democrat from Vermont who is the powerful chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is adding another controversial ingredient to the volatile mix of an immigration debate that President Obama [and now, also Senate leader Harry Reid] has said he hopes to spur in Congress before the end of the year.
Mr. Leahy has offered a bill [the Uniting American Families Act] that would allow American citizens and legal immigrants to seek residency in the United States for their same-sex partners, just as spouses now petition for foreign-born husbands and wives.
Senator Leahy’s bill would add the term “permanent partner” to sections of current immigration law that refer to married couples, and would provide a legal definition of those terms.
. . . immigrant advocacy groups and labor organizations are opening a nationwide campaign . . . Small-scale rallies took place on Monday in Los Angeles and some 40 other locations, and immigration groups are converging on Washington on Wednesday for three days of strategy meetings.
President Obama has invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to the White House next Monday to “launch a policy conversation” about immigration, an administration official said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-sex couples fight for immigration rights" by Mallory Simon, CNN 6/3/09
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill for the first time Wednesday, after 10 previous attempts to have hearings on the Uniting American Families Act. The bill has 102 co-sponsors in the House and 17 co-sponsors in the Senate, including Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council which opposes same sex marriage, has condemned the bill as "yet another attack on marriage at the expense of U.S. taxpayers."
"Although Leahy frames the policy as an anti-discrimination measure, the truth is, this weakens our federal law and chips away at the unique status of marriage," Perkins wrote in a blog on the group's Web site.
"For the federal government to recognize homosexual pairs in any way, shape, or form is a violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, who is openly gay, is a co-sponsor of the House version of the bill, but thinks it should be part of a larger immigration reform measure, according to his spokesman, Harry Gural.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/11/09: H.R. 2709 companion bill moves through House
Illinois residents, click here to E-mail Sens. Durbin & Burris and also click here to E-mail your congressman
-- From "Bill Proposes Immigration Rights for Gay Couples" by Julia Preston, New York Times, 6/2/09
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Democrat from Vermont who is the powerful chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is adding another controversial ingredient to the volatile mix of an immigration debate that President Obama [and now, also Senate leader Harry Reid] has said he hopes to spur in Congress before the end of the year.
Mr. Leahy has offered a bill [the Uniting American Families Act] that would allow American citizens and legal immigrants to seek residency in the United States for their same-sex partners, just as spouses now petition for foreign-born husbands and wives.
Senator Leahy’s bill would add the term “permanent partner” to sections of current immigration law that refer to married couples, and would provide a legal definition of those terms.
. . . immigrant advocacy groups and labor organizations are opening a nationwide campaign . . . Small-scale rallies took place on Monday in Los Angeles and some 40 other locations, and immigration groups are converging on Washington on Wednesday for three days of strategy meetings.
President Obama has invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to the White House next Monday to “launch a policy conversation” about immigration, an administration official said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-sex couples fight for immigration rights" by Mallory Simon, CNN 6/3/09
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill for the first time Wednesday, after 10 previous attempts to have hearings on the Uniting American Families Act. The bill has 102 co-sponsors in the House and 17 co-sponsors in the Senate, including Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council which opposes same sex marriage, has condemned the bill as "yet another attack on marriage at the expense of U.S. taxpayers."
"Although Leahy frames the policy as an anti-discrimination measure, the truth is, this weakens our federal law and chips away at the unique status of marriage," Perkins wrote in a blog on the group's Web site.
"For the federal government to recognize homosexual pairs in any way, shape, or form is a violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, who is openly gay, is a co-sponsor of the House version of the bill, but thinks it should be part of a larger immigration reform measure, according to his spokesman, Harry Gural.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Obama Pushes U.S. Citizenship for Foreign Homosexuals
Under the radar, Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) has introduced bill #S424 to provide "permanent resident status" for alien partners of American homosexuals as if they are married -- just one more assault . . .
-- From "Uniting American Families Act Advances" By Kerry Eleveld, posted at [pro-homosexual] Advocate.com 5/28/09
The Senate Judiciary Committee [on] Wednesday will hold the first congressional hearings on the Uniting American Families Act, a bill that would allow lesbian and gay citizens to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.
The witness list for the hearing has not yet been finalized by Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, who chairs the committee and is the lead sponsor of the bill . . .
The White House has also signaled support for including gay and lesbian couples in the [immigration] reforms.
"The president thinks Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country. We will work closely with Congress to craft comprehensive immigration reform legislation,” White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Bay Windows in March.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Uniting American Families Act Advances" By Kerry Eleveld, posted at [pro-homosexual] Advocate.com 5/28/09
The Senate Judiciary Committee [on] Wednesday will hold the first congressional hearings on the Uniting American Families Act, a bill that would allow lesbian and gay citizens to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.
The witness list for the hearing has not yet been finalized by Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, who chairs the committee and is the lead sponsor of the bill . . .
The White House has also signaled support for including gay and lesbian couples in the [immigration] reforms.
"The president thinks Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country. We will work closely with Congress to craft comprehensive immigration reform legislation,” White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Bay Windows in March.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Obama Rocks Cradle of Community Organizers
“It is just the beginning of a sustained collaborative and focused effort to involve our greatest resource, our citizens in the work of remaking this nation,” the president said.
-- From "New legislation triples service program" by Nia-Malika Henderson, Politico 4/21/09
President Barack Obama signed legislation Tuesday to triple the size of the national service program, calling the expansion a new opportunity to connect “deeds to needs.”
“I’ve always believed that the answer to our challenges cannot come from government alone,” he said. “We need Americans willing to mentor our eager young children, or care for the sick or ease the strains of deployment on our military families.”
The bill, passed by Congress last month with bipartisan support, will create four new service corps: a Clean Energy Corps, a Healthy Futures Corps, a Veterans Service Corps and an Education Corps. It will also create a Summer of Service that will allow middle and high school students to earn $500 education awards.
Calling such programs “force multipliers,” Obama said they will leverage small numbers of people into thousands of volunteers. “We will focus their service towards solving today’s most pressing challenges,” he said.
Community service has been priority for Obama, who often talks about his stint as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago as a turning point in his life. And Michelle Obama, who founded an AmeriCorps program in Chicago, is focusing on community service as first lady.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New law to 'manage' 8 million 'volunteers' - Obama signs huge expansion of youth brigades legislation" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 4/21/09
President Obama today signed into law the "GIVE Act," H.R. 1388 ['Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education], which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars, and one executive for the program now says it will allow for the "managing" of up to 8 or 9 million people.
The bill includes a "National Service Reserve Corps" whose members have completed a "term of national service," "training" and "not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year."
Congress also is considering a "public service academy, a four-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders."
WND reported when the bill began its quick trip through Congress, and its original language called for a study of how best to implement a mandatory national service program for citizens of the United States.
Later the language was dropped from that bill, only to appear at the same time in another legislative proposal. That plan, H.R. 1444, now is in committee.
The plan also raises First Amendment issues over its limitations on what various corps participants are allowed to do.
For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."
Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press wrote that the bill simply would turn everyone into a community organizer.
"There's no room for God in Obama's long promised Youth Brigade, no room to protest, petition, to boycott or to support a strike, and loopholes to give its mandatory membership a pass," she wrote. "Obama's plan requires anyone receiving school loans, among others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade."
Gary Wood at Examiner.com said it's part of Obama's plan to set up national service. He noted the explanation offered by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Duane Lester, writing at All American Blogger, put into words the worst fears of opponents.
"Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.
To read the entire WND article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "New legislation triples service program" by Nia-Malika Henderson, Politico 4/21/09
President Barack Obama signed legislation Tuesday to triple the size of the national service program, calling the expansion a new opportunity to connect “deeds to needs.”
“I’ve always believed that the answer to our challenges cannot come from government alone,” he said. “We need Americans willing to mentor our eager young children, or care for the sick or ease the strains of deployment on our military families.”
The bill, passed by Congress last month with bipartisan support, will create four new service corps: a Clean Energy Corps, a Healthy Futures Corps, a Veterans Service Corps and an Education Corps. It will also create a Summer of Service that will allow middle and high school students to earn $500 education awards.
Calling such programs “force multipliers,” Obama said they will leverage small numbers of people into thousands of volunteers. “We will focus their service towards solving today’s most pressing challenges,” he said.
Community service has been priority for Obama, who often talks about his stint as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago as a turning point in his life. And Michelle Obama, who founded an AmeriCorps program in Chicago, is focusing on community service as first lady.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New law to 'manage' 8 million 'volunteers' - Obama signs huge expansion of youth brigades legislation" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 4/21/09
President Obama today signed into law the "GIVE Act," H.R. 1388 ['Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education], which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars, and one executive for the program now says it will allow for the "managing" of up to 8 or 9 million people.
The bill includes a "National Service Reserve Corps" whose members have completed a "term of national service," "training" and "not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year."
Congress also is considering a "public service academy, a four-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders."
WND reported when the bill began its quick trip through Congress, and its original language called for a study of how best to implement a mandatory national service program for citizens of the United States.
Later the language was dropped from that bill, only to appear at the same time in another legislative proposal. That plan, H.R. 1444, now is in committee.
The plan also raises First Amendment issues over its limitations on what various corps participants are allowed to do.
For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."
Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press wrote that the bill simply would turn everyone into a community organizer.
"There's no room for God in Obama's long promised Youth Brigade, no room to protest, petition, to boycott or to support a strike, and loopholes to give its mandatory membership a pass," she wrote. "Obama's plan requires anyone receiving school loans, among others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade."
Gary Wood at Examiner.com said it's part of Obama's plan to set up national service. He noted the explanation offered by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Duane Lester, writing at All American Blogger, put into words the worst fears of opponents.
"Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.
To read the entire WND article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Kentucky Mother Pens Guide to Christian Citizenship
From "Kentucky mother pens guide to Christian citizenship" posted 6/21/07 at OneNewsNow.com
A Kentucky mother who is also a nurse and educator has written a guide designed to help concerned Christians get involved in the culture war.
Dawn McCamish has no affiliation with any group other than her church, the Ekklesia Christian Life Fellowship in Lexington, Kentucky. The registered nurse, teacher, and mother says she has a conviction to work for the advancement of Christian values in today's society -- especially concerning the saving of innocent pre-born children.
A Kentucky mother who is also a nurse and educator has written a guide designed to help concerned Christians get involved in the culture war.
Dawn McCamish has no affiliation with any group other than her church, the Ekklesia Christian Life Fellowship in Lexington, Kentucky. The registered nurse, teacher, and mother says she has a conviction to work for the advancement of Christian values in today's society -- especially concerning the saving of innocent pre-born children.
McCamish explains that she decided to write "A Guide to Christian Citizenship," which she says promotes justice and godliness in society. Christians have a calling to protect the innocent who cannot speak for themselves, she says, and to be "salt and light" to the world.
...McCamish says one of the reasons people do not get involved is that they do not know how -- and that is what the guide is all about, she points out. The guide can be downloaded through her church's website.
Read the whole article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)