The Obama administration has embarked on massive taxpayer-funded benefits to homosexuals who agree to "marry," such as vacations for members of the military and special rights to non-citizen homosexuals: Foreigners who enter into same-sex "marriage" get faster visas, and those living in the U.S. with expired visas will be forgiven if they "marry" a same-sex partner.
UPDATE 9/6/13: President Obama Shifts VA Money to Homosexuals, Breaking Law
UPDATE 2/8/15: President Obama Floods Gay Agenda with Taxpayers' Money
For background on how President Obama is using the military to fight for the Gay Agenda, read President Obama Shifts Defense Funds to Homosexuals as well as Obama's Military Fights Christians, NOT Jihadists
Also read Countering Obama's Military Attack on American Culture
In addition, read President Obama Creates Homosexual Path to Citizenship
-- From "The Military Endorses Same-Sex Marriage" by Mark Joseph Stern, Slate 8/14/13
Today, the Pentagon has announced that it will grant the exact rights and benefits to married same-sex couples that it does to married straight couples, including housing and healthcare, a vast expansion of its previously announced plans to extend only meager perks to gay couples. Even more surprisingly, the military will offer a 10-day leave to gay couples stationed in a non-marriage state to travel to the 13 states plus Washington, D.C., to be legally wed.
Make no mistake: This is huge news, the biggest military-related LGBT victory since the repeal of Don’t Ask Don't Tell. . . . To allow gay couples to leave the homophobic states [sic] in which they are stationed to gain equal rights—to encourage it, actually, by tethering it to a holiday—is a bold endorsement of marriage equality by the military.
And that endorsement will have broad repercussions throughout society. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Military to allow leave for gay weddings" by David S. Cloud, Los Angeles Times 8/14/13
In a sign of how quickly society is changing, the Pentagon said Wednesday it would grant special leave to thousands of military personnel in same-sex relationships so they can get married in the 13 states where such unions are legal — making them eligible for the first time for full benefits provided to other military families.
The decision, which the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously backed, places the military in the forefront of the still-contentious national debate over same-sex unions.
Same-sex marriage is still barred in 37 states, including the entire South, where many of the Pentagon's largest installations are located. Thus many gay and lesbian couples in the military will face the unusual situation of having their unions recognized by federal authorities while they are on base, but not by the states where they live.
Critics contend that the Obama administration is pushing the military into the center of a political controversy with the goal of forcing even wider acceptance of same-sex marriage in the civilian realm.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "John Kerry: Gay couple visas now issued" by Hadas Gold, Politico 8/2/13
The United States will immediately begin issuing immigrant visas to same-sex couples, Secretary of State John Kerry announced Friday.
As long as the marriage is valid in the jurisdiction, either U.S. or foreign country where it took place, it is valid for immigration purposes, the State Department said in statement. An engaged couple who cannot marry in the foreign fiancé’s country can apply for a fiancé(e) (K) visa.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "State Dept. Panel Advises Gay Foreigners in Civil Unions to Get Married" by Alissa Tabirian, CNSNews.com 8/19/13
Victoria Neilson, legal director for the LBGT group Immigration Equality, was one of three panelists fielding questions submitted through social media sites. She was asked exactly how foreign domestic partnerships will be recognized under new State Department guidelines that require visa applications based on same-sex marriages to be treated the same way as those for heterosexual marriages.
The Immigration Equality website offers the same advice Neilson did on marrying to “feel more secure that your relationship will be recognized for immigration purposes” and notes that generally, “marriage-based petitions are adjudicated quicker” than employment-based petitions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "On-line Discussion of Visa Guidelines for Same-Sex Spouses" posted at U.S. State Department 8/8/13 - Don Heflin, Director of the Visa Office at the State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs and David Stewart, Minister Counselor for Consular Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in London
MR. JOHNSON: Hi there, and welcome to the Google Hangout on the Department of State’s visa processing guidelines for same-sex spouses. . . . we have Victoria Neilson, who is legal director for the LGBT group Immigration Equality.
MS. NEILSON: Great. Hi, thanks for having me here. This is a very exciting time for Immigration Equality. . . . It’s been really great to finally be able to say yes to committed [homosexual] families instead of no, which we’ve been saying for many years. We are delighted that the State Department put out its guidance last week . . .
. . . the advice that we have been giving to most [homosexual] couples is if you can get . . . married, that your rights will be much more certain at that point and the processing of an application would be more straightforward. . . .
. . . If you entered [the U.S.] legally with the visa and overstayed and you are married to a U.S. citizen, then the fact that you’re here unlawfully is forgiven and you can file that application from within the U.S. . . .
To read the entire transcript of the on-line discussion above, CLICK HERE.
Also read President Obama's Sexually Dysfunctional Military On Trial
Showing posts with label domestic partnership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic partnership. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Homosexual 'Domestic Partners' Can't Buy FL Condo
Homosexualists are outraged the association of Casa Di Amici Condo near Venice, Florida has decided to restrict purchases to only single people or legally married (husband and wife) couples. Such a provision is legal in Florida, the homosexualist lawyer agrees, but wants to generate public outrage nonetheless.
For background, read Media Say Law Must Force Christians into Gay Agenda and also read Gay Agenda Attacks America One Town at a Time as well as Homosexuals Sue Illinois Christians for not Celebrating Same-sex Union
In addition, read about the Colorado baker and myriad other Christians sued in states with same-sex unions/marriage laws.
-- From "Condo Association Refuses Property Sales To Any Couples ‘Living In Sin’" posted at CBS Tampa Bay 8/13/13
Any couples who are not yet married and are only parties in domestic parternships, no matter what their sexual orientation, will not be given permission to move into Casa Di Amici Condo, according to WTSP-TV.
“I could not believe what I was reading. It basically says you have to be either a single person or a husband and wife to purchase a unit here,” realtor Julia Nowak, who rents one of the condos to her parents, told the station about a document she received from the association.
Despite some taking offense to the policies, however, the restriction is reportedly not illegal based on Florida state laws.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Florida Condo Association Allows Married Residents Only: Sorry Gays" by Kyle Munzenrieder, Miami New Times 8/13/13
Julia Nowak, an openly gay realtor, discovered the new restrictions when the condo association of the Casa Di Amici Condo near Venice, Florida, adopted them in July. She owns a unit in the upscale neighborhood and rents it out to her elderly parents.
Seriously, you can read the declaration yourself on the association's comic sans-riddled website:
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
For background, read Media Say Law Must Force Christians into Gay Agenda and also read Gay Agenda Attacks America One Town at a Time as well as Homosexuals Sue Illinois Christians for not Celebrating Same-sex Union
In addition, read about the Colorado baker and myriad other Christians sued in states with same-sex unions/marriage laws.
-- From "Condo Association Refuses Property Sales To Any Couples ‘Living In Sin’" posted at CBS Tampa Bay 8/13/13
Any couples who are not yet married and are only parties in domestic parternships, no matter what their sexual orientation, will not be given permission to move into Casa Di Amici Condo, according to WTSP-TV.
“I could not believe what I was reading. It basically says you have to be either a single person or a husband and wife to purchase a unit here,” realtor Julia Nowak, who rents one of the condos to her parents, told the station about a document she received from the association.
Despite some taking offense to the policies, however, the restriction is reportedly not illegal based on Florida state laws.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Florida Condo Association Allows Married Residents Only: Sorry Gays" by Kyle Munzenrieder, Miami New Times 8/13/13
Julia Nowak, an openly gay realtor, discovered the new restrictions when the condo association of the Casa Di Amici Condo near Venice, Florida, adopted them in July. She owns a unit in the upscale neighborhood and rents it out to her elderly parents.
Seriously, you can read the declaration yourself on the association's comic sans-riddled website:
The sale, lease, or transfer of a Condominium Unit may be made only to an individual, to a husband and wife jointly, to the trustee or trustees of a trust, the beneficiaries of which are limited to an individual, a husband and wife, or the lineal descendants of a the husband and wife, or either of them, or to a partnership organized for the purpose of holding title to a Condominium Unit and the partners of which are an individual or husband and wife.While Venice, Florida, has an anti-discrimination ordinance on the books, the condo units are located in unincorporated Sarasota County. So unless the county or the state of Florida passes a human-rights law that forbids discrimination, this is all perfectly legal.
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
Monday, April 29, 2013
Lesbian Methodist Fired from Ohio Catholic School
Carla Hale, 57, a gym teacher for 19 years at Bishop Watterson Catholic High School in Columbus, was fired after she subtly outed herself (as being partnered with Julie, another woman) in the obituary of her mother, printed in the local newspaper. In response, the Diocese of Columbus is being pounded by national media and liberal "catholics" to reinstate Hale, and thus ignore the Bible and Church doctrine. Also, diocese leaders could face fines or jail time if a city anti-discrimination ordinance is deemed enforceable against the Church by a court.
Remember the assurance from Pope Benedict XVI: Public Opinion Won't Liberalize the Church and also read that Pope Francis I Says the Gay Agenda is Work of the Devil
-- From "Diocese affirms need for Catholic fidelity after teacher fired" posted at Catholic News Agency 4/26/13
Speaking “in general terms,” the diocese said in a statement, all Catholic school personnel agree at the beginning of their employment to “abide by the rules, regulations, and policies of the Catholic Diocese, including respecting the moral values advanced by the teachings of Christ.”
“The Catholic Church respects the fundamental dignity of all persons but also must insist that those in its employ respect the tenets of the Church,” the diocese continued. “Personnel who choose to publicly espouse relationships or principles that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot, ultimately, remain in the employ of the Church.”
In 2008, the city [of Columbus] passed an ordinance barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, according to the NBC TV affiliate WCMH, the school’s principal explained to Hale that her termination was not due to the fact that she was a lesbian, but because she had was a relationship with another woman, an action that violates Church teaching.
Morals clauses have been invoked to end the employment of heterosexual teachers at Catholic schools as well.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Columbus Diocese Takes Heat for Firing Lesbian Teacher" by Peter Jesserer Smith, National Catholic Register 4/25/13
“The Catholic diocese is facing a situation where simply living according to its long-held, very open and very public religious beliefs could somehow be a crime in the city of Columbus. That’s very disconcerting,” Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told the Register. The Becket Fund is a Washington-based law firm that specializes in cases involving religious liberty, but it is not representing the Columbus Diocese at this time.
Blomberg said the Columbus anti-discrimination ordinance goes far beyond standard federal and state non-discrimination laws by imposing criminal penalties on employers, especially religious employers who “might require a statement of belief regarding marriage and family that some might find offensive.”
Blomberg said the law was “unclear” as to whether Bishop Campbell and other diocesan personnel would be liable for jail time or fines.
An agreement between the diocese and its teachers' union, the Central Ohio Association of Catholic Educators (COACE), states that the diocese has the right to terminate an employee’s contract “at any time” for engaging in “immorality, for serious unethical conduct or for willful and/or persistent violations of reasonable regulations” set by the school or diocese.
Diocesan policy also states that employees “are expected to be examples of moral behavior and professionalism” in keeping with “the tenets of the Catholic Church.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Furor over gay teacher’s firing may pit city of Columbus against Roman Catholic diocese" by Kirsten Andersen, LifeSiteNews 4/22/13
Now, Hale wants her job back. She has filed a grievance with the teachers’ union, and her lawyer, Thomas Tootle, told the Columbus Dispatch that if Hale’s union grievance does not succeed, her next step will be to sue under the city’s anti-discrimination law.
That means the diocesan officials who fired Hale may soon face legal action from the city of Columbus, fines, and possibly even jail time.
Hale’s is the latest in a series of firings of Catholic school teachers who have publicly opposed Church teaching on homosexuality. Another Ohio Catholic high school teacher, Mike Moroski of Cincinnati, was let go in February after posting on his blog that he supports same-sex “marriage.” Rather than fight the diocese, Morski launched a political career. Al Fischer, an openly homosexual music teacher in St. Louis, was fired from a Catholic school and church last year after announcing he was traveling to New York to “marry” his same-sex partner.
. . . As of this writing, more than 40,000 people have signed an online petition demanding the Diocese of Columbus reinstate Hale’s employment and issue a public apology.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion as well as Obama's National Cathedral is the Seat of Apostasy
Rightfully, Catholic Bishops Slam Obama: Criminal in Eyes of God
It comes down to Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism in America
“[Being a lesbian] had nothing to do with my ability to teach and coach. I don’t think I’m immoral; I don’t think I’ve done anything that’s unethical.”Other teachers have sued Christian schools for being fired over immorality issues, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruling over President Obama's DOJ gives churches freedom to fire & hire.
-- Carla Hale to the media
Remember the assurance from Pope Benedict XVI: Public Opinion Won't Liberalize the Church and also read that Pope Francis I Says the Gay Agenda is Work of the Devil
-- From "Diocese affirms need for Catholic fidelity after teacher fired" posted at Catholic News Agency 4/26/13
Speaking “in general terms,” the diocese said in a statement, all Catholic school personnel agree at the beginning of their employment to “abide by the rules, regulations, and policies of the Catholic Diocese, including respecting the moral values advanced by the teachings of Christ.”
“The Catholic Church respects the fundamental dignity of all persons but also must insist that those in its employ respect the tenets of the Church,” the diocese continued. “Personnel who choose to publicly espouse relationships or principles that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot, ultimately, remain in the employ of the Church.”
In 2008, the city [of Columbus] passed an ordinance barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, according to the NBC TV affiliate WCMH, the school’s principal explained to Hale that her termination was not due to the fact that she was a lesbian, but because she had was a relationship with another woman, an action that violates Church teaching.
Morals clauses have been invoked to end the employment of heterosexual teachers at Catholic schools as well.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Columbus Diocese Takes Heat for Firing Lesbian Teacher" by Peter Jesserer Smith, National Catholic Register 4/25/13
“The Catholic diocese is facing a situation where simply living according to its long-held, very open and very public religious beliefs could somehow be a crime in the city of Columbus. That’s very disconcerting,” Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told the Register. The Becket Fund is a Washington-based law firm that specializes in cases involving religious liberty, but it is not representing the Columbus Diocese at this time.
Blomberg said the Columbus anti-discrimination ordinance goes far beyond standard federal and state non-discrimination laws by imposing criminal penalties on employers, especially religious employers who “might require a statement of belief regarding marriage and family that some might find offensive.”
Blomberg said the law was “unclear” as to whether Bishop Campbell and other diocesan personnel would be liable for jail time or fines.
An agreement between the diocese and its teachers' union, the Central Ohio Association of Catholic Educators (COACE), states that the diocese has the right to terminate an employee’s contract “at any time” for engaging in “immorality, for serious unethical conduct or for willful and/or persistent violations of reasonable regulations” set by the school or diocese.
Diocesan policy also states that employees “are expected to be examples of moral behavior and professionalism” in keeping with “the tenets of the Catholic Church.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Furor over gay teacher’s firing may pit city of Columbus against Roman Catholic diocese" by Kirsten Andersen, LifeSiteNews 4/22/13
Now, Hale wants her job back. She has filed a grievance with the teachers’ union, and her lawyer, Thomas Tootle, told the Columbus Dispatch that if Hale’s union grievance does not succeed, her next step will be to sue under the city’s anti-discrimination law.
That means the diocesan officials who fired Hale may soon face legal action from the city of Columbus, fines, and possibly even jail time.
Hale’s is the latest in a series of firings of Catholic school teachers who have publicly opposed Church teaching on homosexuality. Another Ohio Catholic high school teacher, Mike Moroski of Cincinnati, was let go in February after posting on his blog that he supports same-sex “marriage.” Rather than fight the diocese, Morski launched a political career. Al Fischer, an openly homosexual music teacher in St. Louis, was fired from a Catholic school and church last year after announcing he was traveling to New York to “marry” his same-sex partner.
. . . As of this writing, more than 40,000 people have signed an online petition demanding the Diocese of Columbus reinstate Hale’s employment and issue a public apology.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion as well as Obama's National Cathedral is the Seat of Apostasy
Rightfully, Catholic Bishops Slam Obama: Criminal in Eyes of God
It comes down to Religious Liberty vs. Anti-Christian Totalitarianism in America
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Pres. Obama Shifts Defense Funds to Homosexuals
As huge budget cuts are made in the U.S. military to counter the ever-increasing federal government deficit spending, President Obama has bypassed Congress to bestow new entitlements to deviant sex partners of members of the military. This new government spending will be paid from taxpayers' money that otherwise would have been used to defend Americans.
The president says that the "unconstitutional and unfair" Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is limiting how much money he can divert to the homosexuals.
For background, read Congress Battles Obama: Military & Defense of Marriage and also read Obama's Military Fights Christians, NOT Jihadists and read the saga of President Obama's War on Marriage via Judges
UPDATE 2/19/13 Clarification: Only homosexuals are eligible for extended benefits, not heterosexuals
-- From "Pentagon announces extension of benefits to same-sex partners" by Lucy Madison, CBS News 2/11/13
Just weeks after lifting the ban on women in combat, the Defense Department announced yet another groundbreaking decision today, making official the extension of some military benefits to same-sex partners previously denied them.
In a statement, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the military would no longer provide some benefits to heterosexual couples while denying them to same-sex partners in the military.
"Seventeen months ago, the United States military ended the policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Panetta said today in a statement announcing the decision. "At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy. It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Leon Panetta expands gay pairs' benefits" by Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle 2/11/13
The 20 benefits include education, hospital visitation, casualty notification, travel, transportation, identification cards, family counseling, relocation assistance, recreation programs and other benefits that will be available to gay and lesbian couples who sign a declaration attesting to their committed relationship.
[Secretary Panetta said Monday,] "Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation."
Panetta said additional benefits for same-sex couples "will require substantial policy revisions and training" but will be available "as expeditiously as possible."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Partners of Gays in Service Are Granted Some Benefits" by Thom Shanker, New York Times 2/11/13
Full benefits would require the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Pentagon lifted the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the armed forces, but it cannot recognize their marriages, even if they are legal in some states, because military personnel are federal employees covered by the marriage law.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on whether the law is constitutional.
“Additional benefits, such as health care and housing allowances, are by statute currently only available to spouses and therefore cannot be made available to same-sex domestic partners of service members under current law,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta wrote in a letter released by the Pentagon.
“In the event that the Defense of Marriage Act is no longer applicable to the Department of Defense, it will be the policy of the department to construe the words ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ without regard to sexual orientation,” he added, “and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, and their dependents will be granted full military benefits.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-sex military couples to get expanded access to benefits, Pentagon says" by Ernesto Londoño and Craig Whitlock, Washington Post 2/11/13
The Pentagon estimates that about 5,600 active-duty and roughly 3,400 National Guard servicemembers have same-sex spouses [sic].
The biggest lingering question is whether the department might be able to offer on-base housing to same-sex couples. The Pentagon decided not to do so for the time being because on-base housing is scarce and because legal experts worried that doing so could have contravened the “spirit” of the federal marriage law, a defense official told reporters.
News last week about the impending announcement generated supportive statements from Capitol Hill and did not appear to draw significant criticism from groups that have in the past raised concerns about allowing openly gay people to serve in the armed forces.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senator: DoD Giving Benefits To Same-Sex Partners Creates Costly 'New Class of Beneficiary'" by Craig Bannister, posted at CNSNews.com 2/11/13
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) [said] . . . "The Department of Defense is essentially creating a new class of beneficiary that will increase costs and demand for limited resources that are currently available for military families, active and reserve forces, and retirees."
Inhofe also suggested Obama used semantics to merely give the appearance of respecting the Defense of Marriage Act:
"In a weak attempt to not violate the Defense of Marriage Act, the Administration is using a play on words by saying 'same sex domestic partners' can have access to benefits instead of 'spouses.' We are on a slippery slope here. Why would the DoD extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits?"
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Justice Scalia: No Right to Same-sex 'Marriage'
The president says that the "unconstitutional and unfair" Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is limiting how much money he can divert to the homosexuals.
"President Obama continues to expand the government's financial obligations to support his liberal social agenda during a time when this Administration has imposed drastic budget cuts to our military readiness and national security."UPDATE 2/8/15: President Obama Floods Gay Agenda with Taxpayers' Money
-- Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
For background, read Congress Battles Obama: Military & Defense of Marriage and also read Obama's Military Fights Christians, NOT Jihadists and read the saga of President Obama's War on Marriage via Judges
UPDATE 2/19/13 Clarification: Only homosexuals are eligible for extended benefits, not heterosexuals
-- From "Pentagon announces extension of benefits to same-sex partners" by Lucy Madison, CBS News 2/11/13
Just weeks after lifting the ban on women in combat, the Defense Department announced yet another groundbreaking decision today, making official the extension of some military benefits to same-sex partners previously denied them.
In a statement, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the military would no longer provide some benefits to heterosexual couples while denying them to same-sex partners in the military.
"Seventeen months ago, the United States military ended the policy of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Panetta said today in a statement announcing the decision. "At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy. It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Leon Panetta expands gay pairs' benefits" by Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle 2/11/13
The 20 benefits include education, hospital visitation, casualty notification, travel, transportation, identification cards, family counseling, relocation assistance, recreation programs and other benefits that will be available to gay and lesbian couples who sign a declaration attesting to their committed relationship.
[Secretary Panetta said Monday,] "Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation."
Panetta said additional benefits for same-sex couples "will require substantial policy revisions and training" but will be available "as expeditiously as possible."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Partners of Gays in Service Are Granted Some Benefits" by Thom Shanker, New York Times 2/11/13
Full benefits would require the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Pentagon lifted the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the armed forces, but it cannot recognize their marriages, even if they are legal in some states, because military personnel are federal employees covered by the marriage law.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on whether the law is constitutional.
“Additional benefits, such as health care and housing allowances, are by statute currently only available to spouses and therefore cannot be made available to same-sex domestic partners of service members under current law,” Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta wrote in a letter released by the Pentagon.
“In the event that the Defense of Marriage Act is no longer applicable to the Department of Defense, it will be the policy of the department to construe the words ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ without regard to sexual orientation,” he added, “and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, and their dependents will be granted full military benefits.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-sex military couples to get expanded access to benefits, Pentagon says" by Ernesto Londoño and Craig Whitlock, Washington Post 2/11/13
The Pentagon estimates that about 5,600 active-duty and roughly 3,400 National Guard servicemembers have same-sex spouses [sic].
The biggest lingering question is whether the department might be able to offer on-base housing to same-sex couples. The Pentagon decided not to do so for the time being because on-base housing is scarce and because legal experts worried that doing so could have contravened the “spirit” of the federal marriage law, a defense official told reporters.
News last week about the impending announcement generated supportive statements from Capitol Hill and did not appear to draw significant criticism from groups that have in the past raised concerns about allowing openly gay people to serve in the armed forces.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senator: DoD Giving Benefits To Same-Sex Partners Creates Costly 'New Class of Beneficiary'" by Craig Bannister, posted at CNSNews.com 2/11/13
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) [said] . . . "The Department of Defense is essentially creating a new class of beneficiary that will increase costs and demand for limited resources that are currently available for military families, active and reserve forces, and retirees."
Inhofe also suggested Obama used semantics to merely give the appearance of respecting the Defense of Marriage Act:
"In a weak attempt to not violate the Defense of Marriage Act, the Administration is using a play on words by saying 'same sex domestic partners' can have access to benefits instead of 'spouses.' We are on a slippery slope here. Why would the DoD extend benefits to same-sex partners and then deny cohabiting heterosexual couples the same benefits?"
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Justice Scalia: No Right to Same-sex 'Marriage'
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.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
NC Gay 'Marriage' Debate Hot - for Obama? NOT!
North Carolina's referendum vote for traditional marriage, likely to succeed in just two weeks, is a hot topic for voters, but for President Obama, who barely carried the state in 2008, it's simply too toxic for today's campaign speech, because little more than the president's deep pockets favor the Gay Agenda.
-- From "Thousands rally to back NC marriage amendment" by Gary D. Robertson, Associated Press 4/20/12
The proposed constitutional amendment would identify traditional marriage as the only domestic legal union recognized by the state. State law, which already limits marriage to a man and a woman, won't change if the question fails . . .
Friday's rally resembled a combination evangelistic crusade and outdoor concert, as a singer's renditions of "God Bless America" and the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" were interspersed with preaching and explanations on the history of marriage. Rally-goers raised their hands in prayer, gave hearty "amens" and held placards supporting the amendment.
State Capitol Police estimated the crowd in downtown Raleigh at about 3,000, as churches and Christian schools bused in members and students to the Halifax Mall.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In North Carolina, more evidence of Obama’s delicate approach to gay rights" by Amy Gardner, Washington Post 4/23/12
. . . President Obama is not expected to touch the [referendum] subject when he appears in Chapel Hill . . .
Instead, Obama will talk about college loans, his aides said, kicking off a two-day, three-state tour designed to energize the youth vote. His delicate sidestep of Amendment One, a ballot initiative to be decided May 8 . . . is seen by some as another sign that he is not fully committed to gay rights — an interpretation that could dampen the enthusiasm of the young voters he is trying to court.
It will also be up to Obama to navigate the political crosscurrents of a complicated state in which he must court multiple constituencies that do not all agree on all the same issues.
. . . Quietly opposing Amendment One, but keeping his distance from on-the-ground efforts to defeat it, could be an essential strategy for Obama to pull back together the diverse coalition that elected him last time.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "The Marriage Amendment: A question of state policy or a test of faith?" by Larry Clark, Hickory Daily Record 4/21/12
The issue is drawn between conservatives and liberals, but not always between Republicans and Democrats.
This is how the state Constitution would read if Amendment One passes:
Many people believe the Marriage Amendment will be decided on the voters’ gut feelings. Is same-sex marriage a sin or is it acceptable in light of their religious beliefs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats on marriage amendment" by Michael Gordon & Tim Funk, Charlotte Observer 4/21/12
A March 23 survey by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh showed that black voters statewide support the measure 61 percent to 30 percent. Whites: 58-38 percent in favor.
More than 80 percent of the state’s African-Americans voters are Democrats. Their support for the amendment represents a rare break with the party’s leaders and civil rights groups.
As such, the marriage amendment has hammered a wedge between two enduring traits of African-American believers – a tradition of political and social activism, and a streak of moral conservatism, especially when it comes to gays and lesbians.
The state NAACP has led the fight to defeat the amendment . . .
Yet Mark Harris, the white pastor of First Baptist Church in Charlotte and a statewide leader in the campaign for passage, says the vote will show “how out of touch the state NAACP is with most African-Americans” on the issue.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Bishops Say Obama Destroying Societal Norm
“The president has done more to advance gay rights than any other.”-- Clo Ewing, Obama campaign spokeswomanFor background, read Voters to Define Marriage in May in North Carolina and also read Obama Defeats Marriage, Again - Congress Responds as well as White House Gay Agenda Advances by Fiat Promised
-- From "Thousands rally to back NC marriage amendment" by Gary D. Robertson, Associated Press 4/20/12
The proposed constitutional amendment would identify traditional marriage as the only domestic legal union recognized by the state. State law, which already limits marriage to a man and a woman, won't change if the question fails . . .
Friday's rally resembled a combination evangelistic crusade and outdoor concert, as a singer's renditions of "God Bless America" and the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" were interspersed with preaching and explanations on the history of marriage. Rally-goers raised their hands in prayer, gave hearty "amens" and held placards supporting the amendment.
State Capitol Police estimated the crowd in downtown Raleigh at about 3,000, as churches and Christian schools bused in members and students to the Halifax Mall.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "In North Carolina, more evidence of Obama’s delicate approach to gay rights" by Amy Gardner, Washington Post 4/23/12
. . . President Obama is not expected to touch the [referendum] subject when he appears in Chapel Hill . . .
Instead, Obama will talk about college loans, his aides said, kicking off a two-day, three-state tour designed to energize the youth vote. His delicate sidestep of Amendment One, a ballot initiative to be decided May 8 . . . is seen by some as another sign that he is not fully committed to gay rights — an interpretation that could dampen the enthusiasm of the young voters he is trying to court.
It will also be up to Obama to navigate the political crosscurrents of a complicated state in which he must court multiple constituencies that do not all agree on all the same issues.
. . . Quietly opposing Amendment One, but keeping his distance from on-the-ground efforts to defeat it, could be an essential strategy for Obama to pull back together the diverse coalition that elected him last time.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "The Marriage Amendment: A question of state policy or a test of faith?" by Larry Clark, Hickory Daily Record 4/21/12
The issue is drawn between conservatives and liberals, but not always between Republicans and Democrats.
This is how the state Constitution would read if Amendment One passes:
"Sec. 6. Marriage.For many, the Marriage Amendment is about religion.
“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."
Many people believe the Marriage Amendment will be decided on the voters’ gut feelings. Is same-sex marriage a sin or is it acceptable in light of their religious beliefs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats on marriage amendment" by Michael Gordon & Tim Funk, Charlotte Observer 4/21/12
A March 23 survey by Public Policy Polling of Raleigh showed that black voters statewide support the measure 61 percent to 30 percent. Whites: 58-38 percent in favor.
More than 80 percent of the state’s African-Americans voters are Democrats. Their support for the amendment represents a rare break with the party’s leaders and civil rights groups.
As such, the marriage amendment has hammered a wedge between two enduring traits of African-American believers – a tradition of political and social activism, and a streak of moral conservatism, especially when it comes to gays and lesbians.
The state NAACP has led the fight to defeat the amendment . . .
Yet Mark Harris, the white pastor of First Baptist Church in Charlotte and a statewide leader in the campaign for passage, says the vote will show “how out of touch the state NAACP is with most African-Americans” on the issue.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Bishops Say Obama Destroying Societal Norm
Monday, January 30, 2012
Romney Wins Big with Fla. Homosexual Republicans
Mitt Romney is far and away the favorite GOP presidential candidate among Americans who support sexually deviant behavior.
UPDATE 5/15/12: Romney says same-sex couples ‘have the right’ to adopt children
-- From "Mitt Romney wins big in straw vote Saturday at Log Cabin Republicans' Florida caucus in Miami" by Steve Rothaus, Miami Herald Staff 1/28/12
Log Cabin Republicans overwhelmingly chose Gov. Mitt Romney as their favorite GOP presidential candidate in a Florida straw vote on Saturday at City Hall the Restaurant, 2004 Biscayne Blvd. in Miami.
The straw vote came following Log Cabin's national board meeting in Miami.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Fla. Log Cabin members tilt toward Romney" by Lou Chibbaro Jr., Washington Blade 1/29/12
Officials from the group’s Florida chapters said the outcome was consistent with anecdotal information they’ve received from club members and gay and lesbian Republicans across the state – that a majority of Florida’s LGBT Republicans, including those who initially backed former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, have shifted their support to Romney.
Shortly after Log Cabin’s cocktail caucus adjourned on Saturday evening, the Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, and the Tampa Bay Times released the findings of a joint poll that showed a large majority of the state’s Republican voters were in agreement with the Log Cabin members.
[R. Clarke Cooper, president of the national Log Cabin Republicans organization, said,] “Romney has said doing a [one-man/one-woman marriage] constitutional amendment is not realistic and that’s not something that’s going to happen.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
“I don’t believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights.”For background, read Christian Liberty at Risk with a President Romney?
-- Mitt Romney told Nashua Telegraph 11/22/11
UPDATE 5/15/12: Romney says same-sex couples ‘have the right’ to adopt children
-- From "Mitt Romney wins big in straw vote Saturday at Log Cabin Republicans' Florida caucus in Miami" by Steve Rothaus, Miami Herald Staff 1/28/12
Log Cabin Republicans overwhelmingly chose Gov. Mitt Romney as their favorite GOP presidential candidate in a Florida straw vote on Saturday at City Hall the Restaurant, 2004 Biscayne Blvd. in Miami.
The straw vote came following Log Cabin's national board meeting in Miami.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Fla. Log Cabin members tilt toward Romney" by Lou Chibbaro Jr., Washington Blade 1/29/12
Officials from the group’s Florida chapters said the outcome was consistent with anecdotal information they’ve received from club members and gay and lesbian Republicans across the state – that a majority of Florida’s LGBT Republicans, including those who initially backed former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, have shifted their support to Romney.
Shortly after Log Cabin’s cocktail caucus adjourned on Saturday evening, the Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, and the Tampa Bay Times released the findings of a joint poll that showed a large majority of the state’s Republican voters were in agreement with the Log Cabin members.
[R. Clarke Cooper, president of the national Log Cabin Republicans organization, said,] “Romney has said doing a [one-man/one-woman marriage] constitutional amendment is not realistic and that’s not something that’s going to happen.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Judge Rules Against El Paso Dictator on Recall
County Judge Javier Alvarez in Texas ruled that El Paso Mayor John Cook along with two city council members will face an April recall election spearheaded by Pastor Tom Brown because the city government overruled a ballot initiative regarding employee benefits. For months now, the mayor and the councilmen have fiercely attacked the pastor-led citizen uprising in trying to avert the recall.
UPDATE 4/1/12: Citizens' action against government headed to Texas Supreme Court
-- From "Judge Rules in Favor of Recall" by Chip Maxham, KTSM-TV9 (El Paso) 11/28/11
Pastor Brown is among a group of people who began circulating a petition for the recall of the officials after Cook, [Susie] Byrd and [Steve] Ortega reinstated health care to domestic partners of city workers. This action overturned a ballot initiative where voters had elected to deny health care for the unmarried domestic partners of city workers.
Cook and his attorney had argued that signatures were collected in churches, violating election laws. Mayor Cook says he is considering appealing Judge Alvarez's decision.
To read the entire article above and see TV news video, CLICK HERE.
From "El Paso Mayor John Cook recall effort moves ahead" By Marty Schladen, El Paso Times 11/29/11
Alvarez issued the order without explaining his reasons for doing so. In a court hearing last week, Alvarez hinted that although he believed the law had been violated in circulating the petitions, he believed the free-speech rights of those circulating them were at stake.
The law says that officers and agents of corporations that violate it are subject to criminal penalties and District Attorney Jaime Esparza has said he's considering charging Brown under that provision. Brown said he couldn't comment on that or on Alvarez's statement in court that he thought the law had been violated.
Brown said the mayor was a "renegade" for bringing the suit in the first place.
Theresa Caballero, one of the recall group's attorneys, had said she and two others were handling the case for free. On her blog on Monday, Caballero said she and the others plan to ask Alvarez to order Cook to pay their fees.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "District Attorney Responds to Harsh Criticism from Pastor Tom Brown's Lawyers" by Kai Porter, Weekend Anchor/Reporter KTSM-TV9 8/22/11
Theresa Caballero and Steward Leeds held a news conference Saturday and claimed that [District Attorney] Jaime Esparza has launched a "politically motivated" investigation into Brown and his recall effort.
"District Attorney Jaime Esparza is starting another one of his, in a long line, of political prosecutions," said Leeds.
Leeds also claimed Esparza is a political ally of Cook, Byrd and Ortega.
"He needs them and they need him to save their jobs from this recall. He's stepping right up to the plate for them."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Controversial Sign Calls Tom Brown's View on Sexuality 'A-Hole-Y'" by Kai Porter, Weekend Anchor/Reporter KTSM-TV9 9/23/11
. . . the sign in front of Freeway Carpets in the lower valley calls out Pastor Tom Brown. Co-owner of Freeway Carpets, Tom Avila, put it up a few days ago.
People have noticed the sign and one of them is Pastor Tom Brown. He says the carpet store absolutely has the right to express its feelings. But he thinks the sign is as wrong as anything he's been accused of and misses the real point of the recall debate
"Hate speech goes both ways. It’s the church's right to teach morality, and it’s important that statements like this don’t cross the line into hate. Is he also saying that the 39,000 El Pasoans who voted against those benefits are bigots? Is he speaking against those 39,000?” says Brown.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Tom Brown, Lawyer: It's Not a 'Gay Rights' Issue" by Staff KTSM-TV9 9/23/11
[Brown's attorney, Theresa Caballero, said] "It's no longer about gay rights or partner benefits. It's about a group of schmucks in office being financed by we need to find out whom," she said.
Caballero says she's filed her own motion for the same hearing to find out who's paying for Mayor Cook's legal fight.
"The population says we don't want any more of Cook, Susie Byrd or Steve Ortega. We need to get rid of them. Then you have this oligarchy. These individuals who really run the town propping them up cause they need their men in power," she said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Mayor: Freedom of speech is over" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 12/3/11
A video has surfaced that shows [Mayor John Cook] gave a woman who was addressing the city council on the issue of its criticism of faith and churches only some 70 seconds to talk, and then he told her to take her "freedom of speech outside."
During the heat of [the recall petition] arguments, Father Michael Rodriguez asked the city council not to extend benefits to same-sex couples.
That request prompted a member of the council to blast representatives of the Christian faith. Beto O'Rourke referenced the "moral failings of the church" and accused representatives of trying "to take the moral high ground" in the debate.
"I want to know why this for you has become the burning issue of its day and how you can stand here with a straight face and say that this is a priority for the church and, and I can think of two obvious cases where the church has failed on a global level, uh, for one, I know in the very recent past the pope, our current pope, was in Africa, telling the people in that country (sic) who are suffering a holocaust of HIV and AIDS infection not to use condoms. I can think of another very significant and serious problem within the Catholic church which is the proven widespread abuse of children within the care of the Catholic church. I wonder where your outspokenness is on those issues…"
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 4/1/12: Citizens' action against government headed to Texas Supreme Court
-- From "Judge Rules in Favor of Recall" by Chip Maxham, KTSM-TV9 (El Paso) 11/28/11
Pastor Brown is among a group of people who began circulating a petition for the recall of the officials after Cook, [Susie] Byrd and [Steve] Ortega reinstated health care to domestic partners of city workers. This action overturned a ballot initiative where voters had elected to deny health care for the unmarried domestic partners of city workers.
Cook and his attorney had argued that signatures were collected in churches, violating election laws. Mayor Cook says he is considering appealing Judge Alvarez's decision.
To read the entire article above and see TV news video, CLICK HERE.
From "El Paso Mayor John Cook recall effort moves ahead" By Marty Schladen, El Paso Times 11/29/11
Alvarez issued the order without explaining his reasons for doing so. In a court hearing last week, Alvarez hinted that although he believed the law had been violated in circulating the petitions, he believed the free-speech rights of those circulating them were at stake.
The law says that officers and agents of corporations that violate it are subject to criminal penalties and District Attorney Jaime Esparza has said he's considering charging Brown under that provision. Brown said he couldn't comment on that or on Alvarez's statement in court that he thought the law had been violated.
Brown said the mayor was a "renegade" for bringing the suit in the first place.
Theresa Caballero, one of the recall group's attorneys, had said she and two others were handling the case for free. On her blog on Monday, Caballero said she and the others plan to ask Alvarez to order Cook to pay their fees.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "District Attorney Responds to Harsh Criticism from Pastor Tom Brown's Lawyers" by Kai Porter, Weekend Anchor/Reporter KTSM-TV9 8/22/11
Theresa Caballero and Steward Leeds held a news conference Saturday and claimed that [District Attorney] Jaime Esparza has launched a "politically motivated" investigation into Brown and his recall effort.
"District Attorney Jaime Esparza is starting another one of his, in a long line, of political prosecutions," said Leeds.
Leeds also claimed Esparza is a political ally of Cook, Byrd and Ortega.
"He needs them and they need him to save their jobs from this recall. He's stepping right up to the plate for them."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Controversial Sign Calls Tom Brown's View on Sexuality 'A-Hole-Y'" by Kai Porter, Weekend Anchor/Reporter KTSM-TV9 9/23/11
. . . the sign in front of Freeway Carpets in the lower valley calls out Pastor Tom Brown. Co-owner of Freeway Carpets, Tom Avila, put it up a few days ago.
People have noticed the sign and one of them is Pastor Tom Brown. He says the carpet store absolutely has the right to express its feelings. But he thinks the sign is as wrong as anything he's been accused of and misses the real point of the recall debate
"Hate speech goes both ways. It’s the church's right to teach morality, and it’s important that statements like this don’t cross the line into hate. Is he also saying that the 39,000 El Pasoans who voted against those benefits are bigots? Is he speaking against those 39,000?” says Brown.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Tom Brown, Lawyer: It's Not a 'Gay Rights' Issue" by Staff KTSM-TV9 9/23/11
[Brown's attorney, Theresa Caballero, said] "It's no longer about gay rights or partner benefits. It's about a group of schmucks in office being financed by we need to find out whom," she said.
Caballero says she's filed her own motion for the same hearing to find out who's paying for Mayor Cook's legal fight.
"The population says we don't want any more of Cook, Susie Byrd or Steve Ortega. We need to get rid of them. Then you have this oligarchy. These individuals who really run the town propping them up cause they need their men in power," she said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Mayor: Freedom of speech is over" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 12/3/11
A video has surfaced that shows [Mayor John Cook] gave a woman who was addressing the city council on the issue of its criticism of faith and churches only some 70 seconds to talk, and then he told her to take her "freedom of speech outside."
During the heat of [the recall petition] arguments, Father Michael Rodriguez asked the city council not to extend benefits to same-sex couples.
That request prompted a member of the council to blast representatives of the Christian faith. Beto O'Rourke referenced the "moral failings of the church" and accused representatives of trying "to take the moral high ground" in the debate.
"I want to know why this for you has become the burning issue of its day and how you can stand here with a straight face and say that this is a priority for the church and, and I can think of two obvious cases where the church has failed on a global level, uh, for one, I know in the very recent past the pope, our current pope, was in Africa, telling the people in that country (sic) who are suffering a holocaust of HIV and AIDS infection not to use condoms. I can think of another very significant and serious problem within the Catholic church which is the proven widespread abuse of children within the care of the Catholic church. I wonder where your outspokenness is on those issues…"
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
'Gay Hate Crimes' Against Christians Planned
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that the name and address of every Washington state resident who signed the Referendum 71 petition to repeal the state homosexual partnership law be published, and immediately the homosexualists announced that they will place the list on the Internet for quick searching to locate "the nearest homophobe" to target.
UPDATE 10/21/11: After complete database is released to the public, Secretary of State stops further distribution (as if it matters, after "the horse is out of the barn")
UPDATE (related) 8/17/12: Homosexualists' Terrorist Attack on Christians in D.C.
-- From "Gay Rights Group Says It Will Publish R-71 Petition Signers Names" by Austin Jenkins, KUOW 94.9FM Puget Sound Public Radio 10/18/11
Referendum 71 was a failed effort by opponents of gay marriage to repeal Washington's "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law. Now, following a protracted legal battle, a federal judge has ordered the petitions be made public.
[Homosexual activist] "Know Thy Neighbor" plans to publish the 130,000-plus names in an online searchable database. The group has done this before in Arkansas, Florida and Massachusetts.
Director Tom Lang says it allows gay people and their allies to search for individual signers they know and confront them.
[Protect Marriage Washington attorney James Bopp Jr. said,] "Well, our plan is to do everything we can do to protect people's right to participate in our democratic process without being subject to death threats and threats of violence and actual violence."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Washington to ID Voters Who Fought Gay Rights" by June Williams, Courthouse News Service 10/18/11
Referendum 71 attempted to overturn a 2009 Washington law that granted domestic partners all the rights of married couples. Offered the choice between accepting or rejecting the new law, voters approved it, 53-47 percent.
In the weeks after the referendum, several groups requested copies of the R-71 petition, which Protect Marriage used to place the referendum on the ballot. The initiative's conservative supporters sued Washington in 2009 to keep the names of 137,000 people who signed its petition secret, saying the release under the Washington's Public Records Act violated the their civil rights and there was a "reasonable probability" that signees would be harassed.
After a federal judge initially blocked the release, the 9th Circuit overturned in October 2009. But a temporary block authorized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy kept the names under wraps for another eight months as the justices considered oral arguments. In June 2010, the court ruled 8-1 to release the signatures, leaving open the possibility that threats posed to petition signers could warrant an exception to the Public Records Act.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "State releases Referendum 71 petition names" by Mike Baker, Associated Press 10/17/11
The Washington State Archives provided a DVD to The Associated Press on Monday showing the 138,000 signatures for Referendum 71. The disclosure came just a few hours after a federal judge ruled that the signers are unlikely to face harassment.
Opponents of the law that expanded gay partnership rights managed to get enough signatures in 2009 to force a vote on the issue. They had pushed in court to keep the names of petition supporters private, arguing that it was a contentious issue and that people could be threatened.
An attorney for the group plans to appeal the decision.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "No Harm in Disclosing Petitioner Names, Court Rules" by Sam Favate, Wall Street Journal 10/19/11
Remember that petition you signed protesting people who don’t clean up after their dogs? Or the one to demand that George Lucas release the original, unaltered Star Wars films on Blu-ray? Well, if you thought you were signing them in complete anonymity, think again.
Supporters of the petition to force a vote on the law appealed to halt the release, claiming that reprisals, vandalism and death threats could result, but U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle rejected that, holding there was no “reasonable probability” of reprisals, threats or harassment.
Meanwhile, a Massachusetts-based gay rights group called “Know Thy Neighbor” has said they will publish the names online with a month, KUOW reported. The group, which has published names in an online searchable database concerning similar matters in Arkansas, Florida and Massachusetts, said doing so allows gay people and supporters to find signers they know and talk to them about the issues.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Names of those opposing domestic partner law are given to the public" by Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times 10/18/11
Even as backers of the referendum filed an appeal to try to get the release halted -- fearing that job reprisals, vandalism and death threats could be the result -- the state on Tuesday was giving out lists of the 137,500 names to anyone who wanted them.
Washington's secretary of state, Sam Reed, who has long argued that the state law requires disclosure, called the court's ruling “a victory for transparency and open disclosure in our state's referendum and initiative process.”
But those arguing to keep the signatures secret said Settle appeared to discount threats that were more than theoretical. Lawyers said they documented a number of cases in which signers whose names became public were subjected to death threats, harassment and vandalism.
“People around here need to understand the bullying tactics of the homosexual left,” [Protect Marriage Washington lawyer Stephen Pidgeon] said. “There's no other group like it. If a pastor talks about alcoholism, alcoholics don't get together and threaten to kill him. The only people that show up and want to burn the church down and kill the pastor are the homosexuals.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Militant Homosexualists Vandalize Illinois Christian Academy
Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.
"The whole family was in the dining room, and her son fielded the call, an anonymous call. The guy said, 'I'm going to kill you and your whole family,'"For background, read Path for Christian Persecution by Homosexualists: Supreme Court and also read Same-sex 'Marriage' Advocates Encourage Harassment of Arkansas Voters as well as Supreme Court Hears Gay Bullying of Traditionalists
UPDATE 10/21/11: After complete database is released to the public, Secretary of State stops further distribution (as if it matters, after "the horse is out of the barn")
UPDATE (related) 8/17/12: Homosexualists' Terrorist Attack on Christians in D.C.
-- From "Gay Rights Group Says It Will Publish R-71 Petition Signers Names" by Austin Jenkins, KUOW 94.9FM Puget Sound Public Radio 10/18/11
Referendum 71 was a failed effort by opponents of gay marriage to repeal Washington's "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law. Now, following a protracted legal battle, a federal judge has ordered the petitions be made public.
[Homosexual activist] "Know Thy Neighbor" plans to publish the 130,000-plus names in an online searchable database. The group has done this before in Arkansas, Florida and Massachusetts.
Director Tom Lang says it allows gay people and their allies to search for individual signers they know and confront them.
[Protect Marriage Washington attorney James Bopp Jr. said,] "Well, our plan is to do everything we can do to protect people's right to participate in our democratic process without being subject to death threats and threats of violence and actual violence."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Washington to ID Voters Who Fought Gay Rights" by June Williams, Courthouse News Service 10/18/11
Referendum 71 attempted to overturn a 2009 Washington law that granted domestic partners all the rights of married couples. Offered the choice between accepting or rejecting the new law, voters approved it, 53-47 percent.
In the weeks after the referendum, several groups requested copies of the R-71 petition, which Protect Marriage used to place the referendum on the ballot. The initiative's conservative supporters sued Washington in 2009 to keep the names of 137,000 people who signed its petition secret, saying the release under the Washington's Public Records Act violated the their civil rights and there was a "reasonable probability" that signees would be harassed.
After a federal judge initially blocked the release, the 9th Circuit overturned in October 2009. But a temporary block authorized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy kept the names under wraps for another eight months as the justices considered oral arguments. In June 2010, the court ruled 8-1 to release the signatures, leaving open the possibility that threats posed to petition signers could warrant an exception to the Public Records Act.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "State releases Referendum 71 petition names" by Mike Baker, Associated Press 10/17/11
The Washington State Archives provided a DVD to The Associated Press on Monday showing the 138,000 signatures for Referendum 71. The disclosure came just a few hours after a federal judge ruled that the signers are unlikely to face harassment.
Opponents of the law that expanded gay partnership rights managed to get enough signatures in 2009 to force a vote on the issue. They had pushed in court to keep the names of petition supporters private, arguing that it was a contentious issue and that people could be threatened.
An attorney for the group plans to appeal the decision.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "No Harm in Disclosing Petitioner Names, Court Rules" by Sam Favate, Wall Street Journal 10/19/11
Remember that petition you signed protesting people who don’t clean up after their dogs? Or the one to demand that George Lucas release the original, unaltered Star Wars films on Blu-ray? Well, if you thought you were signing them in complete anonymity, think again.
Supporters of the petition to force a vote on the law appealed to halt the release, claiming that reprisals, vandalism and death threats could result, but U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle rejected that, holding there was no “reasonable probability” of reprisals, threats or harassment.
Meanwhile, a Massachusetts-based gay rights group called “Know Thy Neighbor” has said they will publish the names online with a month, KUOW reported. The group, which has published names in an online searchable database concerning similar matters in Arkansas, Florida and Massachusetts, said doing so allows gay people and supporters to find signers they know and talk to them about the issues.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Names of those opposing domestic partner law are given to the public" by Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times 10/18/11
Even as backers of the referendum filed an appeal to try to get the release halted -- fearing that job reprisals, vandalism and death threats could be the result -- the state on Tuesday was giving out lists of the 137,500 names to anyone who wanted them.
Washington's secretary of state, Sam Reed, who has long argued that the state law requires disclosure, called the court's ruling “a victory for transparency and open disclosure in our state's referendum and initiative process.”
But those arguing to keep the signatures secret said Settle appeared to discount threats that were more than theoretical. Lawyers said they documented a number of cases in which signers whose names became public were subjected to death threats, harassment and vandalism.
“People around here need to understand the bullying tactics of the homosexual left,” [Protect Marriage Washington lawyer Stephen Pidgeon] said. “There's no other group like it. If a pastor talks about alcoholism, alcoholics don't get together and threaten to kill him. The only people that show up and want to burn the church down and kill the pastor are the homosexuals.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Militant Homosexualists Vandalize Illinois Christian Academy
Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Fewer 'Gay Couples' per Census Revisions
The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 corrections with a huge downward revision, showing that same-sex households comprise barely one-half of one percent nationwide.
The Census Bureau admitted Tuesday that it had “artificially inflated the number of same-sex couples” in the United States, initially reporting a number that was about 40 percent higher than what it now believes is accurate.
Read full articles below to see the liberal spin of the data.
For background, read Same-sex Household Count Tiny: U.S. Census and also read American Homosexual Population is Tiny: Study
-- From "Same-sex marriages: first Census count shows 131,729" by Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY 9/27/11
The first federal count of same-sex married couples in the USA shows 131,729 gay or lesbian couples who say they're married. That's far fewer than earlier data suggested, according to revised estimates issued Tuesday by the U.S. Census.
These statistics mark the Census' first release of state numbers of same-sex marriages and paint a clearer picture of the 646,464 same-sex couple households in 2010. (In 514,735 same-sex households, partners don't call themselves married.)
"We now know there are far fewer same-sex marriages than we thought we had because of understandable difficulties with the Census forms," says William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-sex couples more willing to reveal relationships in census, figures show" by Carol Morello, Washington Post 9/27/11
Same-sex couples make up just 1 percent of the 64 million couples in the country, including married couples and unmarried partners, and barely half a percentage point of all households.
Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said the census figures show that the number of gay couples seeking to get married is small. He pointed to a census analysis that 42 percent of same-sex couples living in states where gay marriage is legal actually wed. In comparison, there are 54 million heterosexual married couples and 8 million couples who live together but are not wed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Census: Many gay couples say they're married — even if they technically aren't" by Hope Yen, Associated Press 9/27/11
That 2010 tally of married gay couples is higher than the actual number of legal marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships in the U.S. Even after New York legalized gay marriage in June, a Census Bureau consultant, Gary Gates of UCLA, put the actual number of legally recognized gay partnerships at 100,000.
The total of 646,464 gay couples in the U.S. was a downward revision of the Census Bureau's count of 901,997 released last month. The bureau said Tuesday it had to make the adjustment after determining that coding errors resulted in an exaggerated count for the initial number.
The highest share of households with reported same-sex couples — both married and unmarried — was in Washington, D.C., at nearly 2 percent. Washington was followed by Vermont, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Delaware, New Mexico and Washington state. On the other end of the scale, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming had the smallest shares, each with less than one-third of 1 percent.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Census Bureau Admits It 'Artifcially Inflated the Number of Same-Sex Couples'--by 40 Percent" by Elizabeth Harrington, CNSNews.com 9/28/11
. . . the Census Bureau said in a Tuesday conference call with reporters that it has revised these numbers downward “because Census Bureau staff discovered an inconsistency in the responses in the 2010 Census summary file statistics that artificially inflated the number of same-sex couples.”
“After discovering the inconsistency, Census Bureau staff developed another set of estimates to provide a more accurate way to measure same-sex couple households,” the news release said.
But the inaccuracies prompted the Bureau to devise a “Preferred Estimate,” revealed Tuesday, to more accurately depict the incidences of same-sex households, according to Martin O’Connell, chief of the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the U.S. Census Bureau, during a conference call to highlight the new data.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The Census Bureau admitted Tuesday that it had “artificially inflated the number of same-sex couples” in the United States, initially reporting a number that was about 40 percent higher than what it now believes is accurate.
Read full articles below to see the liberal spin of the data.
For background, read Same-sex Household Count Tiny: U.S. Census and also read American Homosexual Population is Tiny: Study
-- From "Same-sex marriages: first Census count shows 131,729" by Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY 9/27/11
The first federal count of same-sex married couples in the USA shows 131,729 gay or lesbian couples who say they're married. That's far fewer than earlier data suggested, according to revised estimates issued Tuesday by the U.S. Census.
These statistics mark the Census' first release of state numbers of same-sex marriages and paint a clearer picture of the 646,464 same-sex couple households in 2010. (In 514,735 same-sex households, partners don't call themselves married.)
"We now know there are far fewer same-sex marriages than we thought we had because of understandable difficulties with the Census forms," says William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-sex couples more willing to reveal relationships in census, figures show" by Carol Morello, Washington Post 9/27/11
Same-sex couples make up just 1 percent of the 64 million couples in the country, including married couples and unmarried partners, and barely half a percentage point of all households.
Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said the census figures show that the number of gay couples seeking to get married is small. He pointed to a census analysis that 42 percent of same-sex couples living in states where gay marriage is legal actually wed. In comparison, there are 54 million heterosexual married couples and 8 million couples who live together but are not wed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Census: Many gay couples say they're married — even if they technically aren't" by Hope Yen, Associated Press 9/27/11
That 2010 tally of married gay couples is higher than the actual number of legal marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships in the U.S. Even after New York legalized gay marriage in June, a Census Bureau consultant, Gary Gates of UCLA, put the actual number of legally recognized gay partnerships at 100,000.
The total of 646,464 gay couples in the U.S. was a downward revision of the Census Bureau's count of 901,997 released last month. The bureau said Tuesday it had to make the adjustment after determining that coding errors resulted in an exaggerated count for the initial number.
The highest share of households with reported same-sex couples — both married and unmarried — was in Washington, D.C., at nearly 2 percent. Washington was followed by Vermont, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Delaware, New Mexico and Washington state. On the other end of the scale, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming had the smallest shares, each with less than one-third of 1 percent.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Census Bureau Admits It 'Artifcially Inflated the Number of Same-Sex Couples'--by 40 Percent" by Elizabeth Harrington, CNSNews.com 9/28/11
. . . the Census Bureau said in a Tuesday conference call with reporters that it has revised these numbers downward “because Census Bureau staff discovered an inconsistency in the responses in the 2010 Census summary file statistics that artificially inflated the number of same-sex couples.”
“After discovering the inconsistency, Census Bureau staff developed another set of estimates to provide a more accurate way to measure same-sex couple households,” the news release said.
But the inaccuracies prompted the Bureau to devise a “Preferred Estimate,” revealed Tuesday, to more accurately depict the incidences of same-sex households, according to Martin O’Connell, chief of the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the U.S. Census Bureau, during a conference call to highlight the new data.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Voters to Define Marriage in May in North Carolina
Although North Carolina passed a law defining marriage many years ago, today the legislature decided to put the issue to the voters to amend the state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman, in order to thwart any potential future court challenges.
For background, read Marriage Amendment Bill in North Carolina
-- From "Ban on Gay Marriage Gets on N.C. Ballot" by The Associated Press 9/13/11
The state Senate voted 30-16 in favor of putting the question on the statewide primary ballot—the minimum number of yes votes needed to meet the three-fifths majority for such amendments. The House approved the measure Monday with a few votes to spare.
The proposal also would bar the state from sanctioning civil unions.
Thirty states have a gay marriage ban in their constitutions.
Sen. Jim Forrester (R., Gaston), who had filed amendment bills for several years without success, finally won Tuesday after an hour of intense debate on the Senate floor. The amendment, which had been blocked for years by Democrats, won a hearing after Republicans took control of the General Assembly for the first time since 1870. Republicans voted heavily for the measure.
Unlike the House, where 10 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the amendment, the Senate vote was utterly along party lines. Four senators—Republican Fletcher Hartsell of Cabarrus County and Democrats Eric Mansfield of Cumberland County, Michael Walters of Robeson County and Stan White of Dare County—had excused absences and didn't vote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "North Carolina Voters to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage" by Kim Severson, New York Times 9/13/11
The Senate, in a 30-16 vote, agreed to let voters decide during the May primaries whether the state Constitution should ban same-sex marriage. The House approved the measure the day before, 75 to 42.
It is already illegal for people of the same sex to marry in North Carolina. If the amendment passes, it will serve to reinforce that ban and make it more difficult for future legislatures to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.
It could also call into question domestic partnership benefits offered by public institutions and the application of domestic violence laws, said Holning Lau, an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. . . .
The issue brought out people to rally on both sides. The Rev. Patrick Wooden of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh calls homosexuality a “deathstyle” and has long fought against those who equate the battle for gay rights with other civil rights struggles.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "North Carolina Puts Gay Marriage Ban On May 2012 Ballot" by Tyler Kingkade, Huffington Post 9/13/11
Republican leaders in the state legislature elected not to allow any public comment, which enabled them to fast-track the legislation to a vote and passage only 24 hours after it was first introduced. The state House of Representatives passed the same bill on Monday.
Constitutional amendments do not require action by the governor, which means Gov. Bev Perdue (D) has no veto power, and the amendment will now go before voters in the 2012 primary election.
Maxine Eichner, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, and some of her colleagues prepared a report on the proposed amendment in June that outlined potential problems. Even with the revisions made in the last week, Eichner said in an email, the amendment could still interfere with existing child custody and visitation rights and invalidate trusts, wills and end-of-life directives in favor of an unmarried partner, no matter the genders of the unmarried pair.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "N.C. citizens (finally) to get vote on marriage" by Michael Foust, Associate Editor, Baptist Press 9/13/11
All four states that border North Carolina passed constitutional marriage amendments in 2004 or 2006 . . .
GOP leaders in North Carolina tried to de-politicize the issue by moving the vote from November 2012 to the 2012 primary, taking away the argument that the amendment's sole purpose was to bring out conservative voters during a presidential election.
A majority of states, 29, define marriage as between a man and a woman in their state constitutions. The amendments prevent state courts from redefining marriage to include gay couples, as has happened in Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts.
The heart of the North Carolina amendment reads: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Marriage Amendment Bill in North Carolina
-- From "Ban on Gay Marriage Gets on N.C. Ballot" by The Associated Press 9/13/11
The state Senate voted 30-16 in favor of putting the question on the statewide primary ballot—the minimum number of yes votes needed to meet the three-fifths majority for such amendments. The House approved the measure Monday with a few votes to spare.
The proposal also would bar the state from sanctioning civil unions.
Thirty states have a gay marriage ban in their constitutions.
Sen. Jim Forrester (R., Gaston), who had filed amendment bills for several years without success, finally won Tuesday after an hour of intense debate on the Senate floor. The amendment, which had been blocked for years by Democrats, won a hearing after Republicans took control of the General Assembly for the first time since 1870. Republicans voted heavily for the measure.
Unlike the House, where 10 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the amendment, the Senate vote was utterly along party lines. Four senators—Republican Fletcher Hartsell of Cabarrus County and Democrats Eric Mansfield of Cumberland County, Michael Walters of Robeson County and Stan White of Dare County—had excused absences and didn't vote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "North Carolina Voters to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage" by Kim Severson, New York Times 9/13/11
The Senate, in a 30-16 vote, agreed to let voters decide during the May primaries whether the state Constitution should ban same-sex marriage. The House approved the measure the day before, 75 to 42.
It is already illegal for people of the same sex to marry in North Carolina. If the amendment passes, it will serve to reinforce that ban and make it more difficult for future legislatures to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.
It could also call into question domestic partnership benefits offered by public institutions and the application of domestic violence laws, said Holning Lau, an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. . . .
The issue brought out people to rally on both sides. The Rev. Patrick Wooden of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh calls homosexuality a “deathstyle” and has long fought against those who equate the battle for gay rights with other civil rights struggles.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "North Carolina Puts Gay Marriage Ban On May 2012 Ballot" by Tyler Kingkade, Huffington Post 9/13/11
Republican leaders in the state legislature elected not to allow any public comment, which enabled them to fast-track the legislation to a vote and passage only 24 hours after it was first introduced. The state House of Representatives passed the same bill on Monday.
Constitutional amendments do not require action by the governor, which means Gov. Bev Perdue (D) has no veto power, and the amendment will now go before voters in the 2012 primary election.
Maxine Eichner, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, and some of her colleagues prepared a report on the proposed amendment in June that outlined potential problems. Even with the revisions made in the last week, Eichner said in an email, the amendment could still interfere with existing child custody and visitation rights and invalidate trusts, wills and end-of-life directives in favor of an unmarried partner, no matter the genders of the unmarried pair.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "N.C. citizens (finally) to get vote on marriage" by Michael Foust, Associate Editor, Baptist Press 9/13/11
All four states that border North Carolina passed constitutional marriage amendments in 2004 or 2006 . . .
GOP leaders in North Carolina tried to de-politicize the issue by moving the vote from November 2012 to the 2012 primary, taking away the argument that the amendment's sole purpose was to bring out conservative voters during a presidential election.
A majority of states, 29, define marriage as between a man and a woman in their state constitutions. The amendments prevent state courts from redefining marriage to include gay couples, as has happened in Connecticut, Iowa and Massachusetts.
The heart of the North Carolina amendment reads: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Ohio Court Upholds Parental Rights Over Lesbian's
Only one justice of the Ohio Supreme Court sided with the lesbian suing for custody rights of her ex-lover's child -- majority opinion ruled that non-legal emotional bonds do not trump parental rights.
-- From "'Co-parents' need formal agreement, justices rule" by David Eggert, The Columbus Dispatch 7/13/11
In a 4-3 decision yesterday, the justices upheld lower-court rulings that a Cincinnati woman did not agree to shared legal custody of her daughter, now 5, despite planning the in-vitro pregnancy with her partner and naming her a "co-parent" in power-of-attorney documents.
Biological mom Kelly Mullen voided those documents after she and Lucy, then 2, moved out of the house they shared with Michele Hobbs in 2007. Hobbs' name appears on the ceremonial birth certificate, and she helped raise and financially support Lucy.
In his majority opinion, Justice Robert R. Cupp pointed to evidence that Mullen intended to share custody and evidence that she did not. Using "co-parenting" terminology in legal documents is not the same as agreeing to permanently relinquish sole custody for shared parenting, he said.
Though the high court stopped short of requiring couples to sign a written contract changing custodial rights, it said that is the best way to protect their rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court rules against lesbian 'co-parent' in custody fight" by Kimball Perry, Cincinnati.com 7/13/11
“Hobbs was a nonparent under Ohio law despite her active role in raising and caring for the child,” Justice Robert Cupp wrote in the majority opinion of the case that split 4-3 on the decision.
Giving Hobbs’ parental rights would open a floodgate of similar cases that would weaken parenting laws, noted Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University School of Law and founder and chairman of the Virginia-based Liberty Counsel.
While this specific case involved lesbians and was closely watched by gay rights advocates, it also was closely monitored by others who saw it potential impact on parent rights – or the lack of parental rights – of grandparents, step-parents or others raising a child who biologically isn’t theirs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Lesbian Loses Bid For Shared Custody" by The Associated Press 7/12/11
Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger joined the majority. Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, Yvette McGee Brown and Paul Pfeifer dissented.
O'Connor's opinion, joined by McGee Brown, said the court was wrong to accept the case in the first place because it established no new governing principle. One thing it did show, she said: Couples would be prudent to get custody arrangements in writing.
In his dissent, Pfeifer said Hobbs presented more than enough evidence to back up her claim.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court says lesbian 'partner' lacks rights to child" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 7/12/11
However, as an indication of how far the concept has advanced that two men or two women should be called "married," a dissent by Justice Maureen O'Connor said, "The American family takes many forms, including those in which children are raised lovingly in homes headed by two fathers or two mothers …. Our evolving social and cultural notions of family and parenthood coincide with the advancement of reproductive science, medicine, and technology that now permit people to create families in ways quite different from the traditional paradigm in which children are born of one woman impregnated directly by one man."
She wrote, "As our understandings of the family evolve, so do our understandings of parenthood."
Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote a separate dissent, blasting his fellow justices and lamenting, "The law has not caught up to our culture, and this court has failed to craft a rule that addresses reality. Mullen and Hobbs employed a well-versed lawyer who represents people in their situation, and with his advice did all they could do to protect Hobbs. A maternal relationship existed between Hobbs and Lucy. Mullen taught her daughter to call another woman 'Momma' and to love her as a mother. She now wishes she hadn't, and for the majority, that's enough. It shouldn't be."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "'Co-parents' need formal agreement, justices rule" by David Eggert, The Columbus Dispatch 7/13/11
In a 4-3 decision yesterday, the justices upheld lower-court rulings that a Cincinnati woman did not agree to shared legal custody of her daughter, now 5, despite planning the in-vitro pregnancy with her partner and naming her a "co-parent" in power-of-attorney documents.
Biological mom Kelly Mullen voided those documents after she and Lucy, then 2, moved out of the house they shared with Michele Hobbs in 2007. Hobbs' name appears on the ceremonial birth certificate, and she helped raise and financially support Lucy.
In his majority opinion, Justice Robert R. Cupp pointed to evidence that Mullen intended to share custody and evidence that she did not. Using "co-parenting" terminology in legal documents is not the same as agreeing to permanently relinquish sole custody for shared parenting, he said.
Though the high court stopped short of requiring couples to sign a written contract changing custodial rights, it said that is the best way to protect their rights.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court rules against lesbian 'co-parent' in custody fight" by Kimball Perry, Cincinnati.com 7/13/11
“Hobbs was a nonparent under Ohio law despite her active role in raising and caring for the child,” Justice Robert Cupp wrote in the majority opinion of the case that split 4-3 on the decision.
Giving Hobbs’ parental rights would open a floodgate of similar cases that would weaken parenting laws, noted Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University School of Law and founder and chairman of the Virginia-based Liberty Counsel.
While this specific case involved lesbians and was closely watched by gay rights advocates, it also was closely monitored by others who saw it potential impact on parent rights – or the lack of parental rights – of grandparents, step-parents or others raising a child who biologically isn’t theirs.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio Lesbian Loses Bid For Shared Custody" by The Associated Press 7/12/11
Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger joined the majority. Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, Yvette McGee Brown and Paul Pfeifer dissented.
O'Connor's opinion, joined by McGee Brown, said the court was wrong to accept the case in the first place because it established no new governing principle. One thing it did show, she said: Couples would be prudent to get custody arrangements in writing.
In his dissent, Pfeifer said Hobbs presented more than enough evidence to back up her claim.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court says lesbian 'partner' lacks rights to child" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 7/12/11
However, as an indication of how far the concept has advanced that two men or two women should be called "married," a dissent by Justice Maureen O'Connor said, "The American family takes many forms, including those in which children are raised lovingly in homes headed by two fathers or two mothers …. Our evolving social and cultural notions of family and parenthood coincide with the advancement of reproductive science, medicine, and technology that now permit people to create families in ways quite different from the traditional paradigm in which children are born of one woman impregnated directly by one man."
She wrote, "As our understandings of the family evolve, so do our understandings of parenthood."
Justice Paul Pfeifer wrote a separate dissent, blasting his fellow justices and lamenting, "The law has not caught up to our culture, and this court has failed to craft a rule that addresses reality. Mullen and Hobbs employed a well-versed lawyer who represents people in their situation, and with his advice did all they could do to protect Hobbs. A maternal relationship existed between Hobbs and Lucy. Mullen taught her daughter to call another woman 'Momma' and to love her as a mother. She now wishes she hadn't, and for the majority, that's enough. It shouldn't be."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Same-sex 'Marriage' via IRS Regulations
Eight Democrat U.S. Senators have called on the Internal Revenue Service to promulgate tax regulations to accommodate homosexuals as couples "married filing jointly."
-- From "Senators call on IRS to clear up rules for same-sex couples" by Allison Linn, senior writer msnbc.com 6/23/11
In the letter, the senators noted that some state tax laws recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships, even though the federal government does not. That’s creating confusion for couples who want to file accurate returns but are classified differently by state and federal tax regulators, they said. They asked the IRS to offer guidance.
This isn’t the first time the tax issue has come up. The National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent organization within the IRS that seeks to help taxpayers, also noted in a 2010 report to Congress that the confusion between state laws that recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships, and federal rules that do not, were creating complications for taxpayers.
The senators say some of the confusion would be cleared up if the Defense of Marriage Act were repealed. That’s a federal law that specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman only.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senators to IRS: Fix the Gay Tax Mess" by Scott James, The Bay Citizen 6/23/11
A change last year, originally meant to help same-sex couples in some states take advantage of tax rates offered to heterosexual couples, instead required gay couples to follow complex new rules to file their returns.
The rules were so confusing, most had to hire professional accountants, paying as much as $4,000 for expertise to file their returns. An estimated 60,000 gay couples in California are impacted.
The senators’ intervention comes less than two weeks after another problem related to the situation was exposed: Hundreds of gay couples who followed the new rules had their returns rejected anyway by someone named “J. Bell” in the Fresno IRS office because the couples were not straight.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Senators call on IRS to clear up rules for same-sex couples" by Allison Linn, senior writer msnbc.com 6/23/11
In the letter, the senators noted that some state tax laws recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships, even though the federal government does not. That’s creating confusion for couples who want to file accurate returns but are classified differently by state and federal tax regulators, they said. They asked the IRS to offer guidance.
This isn’t the first time the tax issue has come up. The National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent organization within the IRS that seeks to help taxpayers, also noted in a 2010 report to Congress that the confusion between state laws that recognize same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships, and federal rules that do not, were creating complications for taxpayers.
The senators say some of the confusion would be cleared up if the Defense of Marriage Act were repealed. That’s a federal law that specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman only.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Senators to IRS: Fix the Gay Tax Mess" by Scott James, The Bay Citizen 6/23/11
A change last year, originally meant to help same-sex couples in some states take advantage of tax rates offered to heterosexual couples, instead required gay couples to follow complex new rules to file their returns.
The rules were so confusing, most had to hire professional accountants, paying as much as $4,000 for expertise to file their returns. An estimated 60,000 gay couples in California are impacted.
The senators’ intervention comes less than two weeks after another problem related to the situation was exposed: Hundreds of gay couples who followed the new rules had their returns rejected anyway by someone named “J. Bell” in the Fresno IRS office because the couples were not straight.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Episcopalians Go Gay, Some Go Catholic
As a California Episcopal bishop OK'd priests to perform same-sex "weddings," an Episcopal church in Maryland became the first in the U.S. to formally join the Roman Catholic Church.
For background, read Pope Welcomes Christians Leaving Anglicanism over Liberalism
-- From "Episcopal churches open doors wider" by Sue Nowicki, The Modesto Bee 6/11/11
Beginning Sunday, Episcopal priests in the San Joaquin Diocese can "perform blessings of same gender civil marriages, domestic partnerships and relationships which are lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy" and "holy love."
[Bishop Chester Talton said this will,] "acknowledge the sacredness of that relationship. I think it also says our church is one that is inclusive, that welcomes all, that will embrace all members of God's creation in God's church."
Other faith communities in Modesto, including College Avenue Congregational Church and the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Stanislaus County, have been doing similar ceremonies for the past three decades, their pastors said.
But such blessings are one reason theologically conservative parishes and dioceses in the United States have left the national Episcopal Church and moved to alternative oversight groups within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "California Anglican Bishop Removes Same-Sex Union Ban" by Daniel Blake, Christian Post Contributor 6/10/11
California currently recognizes domestic partnerships between gay couples as long as one or both of the people involved is 62 or older.
U.S. Episcopal bishops who met in 2009 approved a resolution that in effect granted bishops in states that allow either marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships, the discretion to offer a blessing.
This week the diocese of San Joaquin said in a statement: “We must also recognize there are same-gender couples in relationships who have not entered in domestic partnerships, perceiving them to be inferior to marriage and who, for various reasons, did not or could not marry during the brief time when same gender marriages were legal.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Episcopal church in Bladensburg to convert to Roman Catholicism" by Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post 6/6/11
[St. Luke's,] An Episcopal church in Maryland — including its pastor — has decided to convert to Catholicism, the first in the United States to make the move under new Vatican rules meant to appeal to disaffected Protestants.
Leaders of the church said Monday that they were not leaving the Episcopal Church because of the ordination of gays and women — issues that have bitterly divided the American wing of the Anglican Church and coincided with stepped-up efforts by the Vatican to reach out to Anglicans. Instead, church members said, they were satisfying their longing for a clear religious authority by welcoming the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI.
“In the Episcopal Church, bishops in one place say one thing and in another say another,” explained Patrick Delaney, a lay leader from Mitchellville. “That’s the crux of it. Each bishop has its own kingdom.”
The conversions, which are expected to unfold in the coming months, are a dramatic example of the rapid flux of organized religion in the United States. But the Episcopal Church in particular has been rocked in recent years by bitter departures, with exiles slamming the church for ordaining a gay bishop, and by land disputes around the country costing well into the tens of millions. Seven breakaway Northern Virginia congregations have been in court for more than four years with the Episcopal Church.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Md. Episcopal Church Becomes First to Join Catholic Church" by Katherine T. Phan, Christian Post Reporter 6/7/11
St. Luke's, a small congregation of about 100, will come under the care of the Archdiocese of Washington until an ordinate is established in the United States.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who oversees the Catholic Archbishop of Washington, said in a statement that the diocese will "welcome St. Luke parishioners warmly into our family of faith."
Bishop John Bryson Chane of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington has supported St. Luke's decision, allowing the members to worship in their church building under a lease agreement that allows them to purchase it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
As Homosexualists Enter, the Sacred Leave Episcopal Church
Liberal 'Churches' Continue to Wither
Who Owns Church Property in ECUSA?
For background, read Pope Welcomes Christians Leaving Anglicanism over Liberalism
-- From "Episcopal churches open doors wider" by Sue Nowicki, The Modesto Bee 6/11/11
Beginning Sunday, Episcopal priests in the San Joaquin Diocese can "perform blessings of same gender civil marriages, domestic partnerships and relationships which are lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy" and "holy love."
[Bishop Chester Talton said this will,] "acknowledge the sacredness of that relationship. I think it also says our church is one that is inclusive, that welcomes all, that will embrace all members of God's creation in God's church."
Other faith communities in Modesto, including College Avenue Congregational Church and the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Stanislaus County, have been doing similar ceremonies for the past three decades, their pastors said.
But such blessings are one reason theologically conservative parishes and dioceses in the United States have left the national Episcopal Church and moved to alternative oversight groups within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "California Anglican Bishop Removes Same-Sex Union Ban" by Daniel Blake, Christian Post Contributor 6/10/11
California currently recognizes domestic partnerships between gay couples as long as one or both of the people involved is 62 or older.
U.S. Episcopal bishops who met in 2009 approved a resolution that in effect granted bishops in states that allow either marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships, the discretion to offer a blessing.
This week the diocese of San Joaquin said in a statement: “We must also recognize there are same-gender couples in relationships who have not entered in domestic partnerships, perceiving them to be inferior to marriage and who, for various reasons, did not or could not marry during the brief time when same gender marriages were legal.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Episcopal church in Bladensburg to convert to Roman Catholicism" by Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post 6/6/11
[St. Luke's,] An Episcopal church in Maryland — including its pastor — has decided to convert to Catholicism, the first in the United States to make the move under new Vatican rules meant to appeal to disaffected Protestants.
Leaders of the church said Monday that they were not leaving the Episcopal Church because of the ordination of gays and women — issues that have bitterly divided the American wing of the Anglican Church and coincided with stepped-up efforts by the Vatican to reach out to Anglicans. Instead, church members said, they were satisfying their longing for a clear religious authority by welcoming the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI.
“In the Episcopal Church, bishops in one place say one thing and in another say another,” explained Patrick Delaney, a lay leader from Mitchellville. “That’s the crux of it. Each bishop has its own kingdom.”
The conversions, which are expected to unfold in the coming months, are a dramatic example of the rapid flux of organized religion in the United States. But the Episcopal Church in particular has been rocked in recent years by bitter departures, with exiles slamming the church for ordaining a gay bishop, and by land disputes around the country costing well into the tens of millions. Seven breakaway Northern Virginia congregations have been in court for more than four years with the Episcopal Church.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Md. Episcopal Church Becomes First to Join Catholic Church" by Katherine T. Phan, Christian Post Reporter 6/7/11
St. Luke's, a small congregation of about 100, will come under the care of the Archdiocese of Washington until an ordinate is established in the United States.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who oversees the Catholic Archbishop of Washington, said in a statement that the diocese will "welcome St. Luke parishioners warmly into our family of faith."
Bishop John Bryson Chane of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington has supported St. Luke's decision, allowing the members to worship in their church building under a lease agreement that allows them to purchase it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
As Homosexualists Enter, the Sacred Leave Episcopal Church
Liberal 'Churches' Continue to Wither
Who Owns Church Property in ECUSA?
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Same-sex Civil Unions in Delaware
Homosexual couples now have the same rights and benefits of married couples in Delaware, as Gov. Jack Markell signed civil unions into law.
-- From "Delaware legalizes same-sex unions" by The Associated Press 5/12/11
It makes Delaware the eighth state to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.
The law takes effect Jan. 1, 2012.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Governor signs Delaware civil unions bill" by Beth Miller, The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal 5/12/11
After decades of struggle with the gay-rights debate, the civil unions bill seemed to fly through the Legislature, moving from its filing date to final passage April 14 in less than four weeks.
Lawmakers passed the bill in both chambers by margins of almost 2-to-1, with several expressing the difficulty with which they cast their votes for and against. Scores of people testified — some warning of dire consequences if Delaware endorsed same-sex relationships, others urging lawmakers to respect the rights of all and recognize the relationships of the state's same-sex couples as valuable and worthy of legal protection.
Wilmington lawyer David Facciolo and Jane Monahan, a lawyer now living in Geneva, Switzerland, fought against Delaware's version of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but that law passed and remains in effect, which was one reason Equality Delaware sought a civil unions bill for same-sex couples only.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Delaware legalizes same-sex unions" by The Associated Press 5/12/11
It makes Delaware the eighth state to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.
The law takes effect Jan. 1, 2012.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Governor signs Delaware civil unions bill" by Beth Miller, The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal 5/12/11
After decades of struggle with the gay-rights debate, the civil unions bill seemed to fly through the Legislature, moving from its filing date to final passage April 14 in less than four weeks.
Lawmakers passed the bill in both chambers by margins of almost 2-to-1, with several expressing the difficulty with which they cast their votes for and against. Scores of people testified — some warning of dire consequences if Delaware endorsed same-sex relationships, others urging lawmakers to respect the rights of all and recognize the relationships of the state's same-sex couples as valuable and worthy of legal protection.
Wilmington lawyer David Facciolo and Jane Monahan, a lawyer now living in Geneva, Switzerland, fought against Delaware's version of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but that law passed and remains in effect, which was one reason Equality Delaware sought a civil unions bill for same-sex couples only.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
ACLU Loses: MT Marriage Amendment Holds
A District Judge in Helena has ruled against the American Civil Liberties Union in a case questioning whether Montana fails to provide full legal protection for same-sex couples.
-- From "MT judge rules against couples in same-sex rights case" by Dennis Bragg & Melissa Anderson, KXLH-TV9 (Helena, MT) 4/21/11
The ACLU filed the case last summer on behalf of seven couples from several Montana cities, representing 14 gay men and lesbian women who are involved in what the agency called "committed, intimate, same-sex relationships" and raising children.
The ACLU claimed the state offers "numerous protections, rights and benefits" to "different-sex" couples that aren't available to same-sex couples.
Montana's Constitution doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and state law doesn't provide other provisions like "domestic partnerships" available in some other states.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Montana judge rejects gay couple rights suit" by The Associated Press 4/21/11
The gay couples weren't asking for the right in the lawsuit to marry, which the Montana Constitutional defines as between a man and a woman. Rather they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.
The attorney general's office has countered in court that Montana can't extend spousal benefits to gay couples because those benefits are limited to married couples by definition since Montana voters in 2004 approved the marriage amendment.
The state argued in court that the Legislature is free to create a new, separate class for couples regardless of sexual orientation. It argued such a policy choice should be made by the state, and not the courts.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Montana Family Foundation praises ruling favoring traditional marriage" by David Jay, KTVQ-TV2 (Billings, MT) 4/21/11
In his ruling, District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock dismissed the case. He stated he can not instruct the legislature to pass laws to give same sex couples the same rights as married couples.
"This court can not grant the relief that the Plantiffs seek," Sherlock wrote. "To do would violate the constitutional separation of powers existing in the state of Montanan."
On its website, the ACLU says it has not decided if it will appeal, but it disagrees with the decision.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "MT judge rules against couples in same-sex rights case" by Dennis Bragg & Melissa Anderson, KXLH-TV9 (Helena, MT) 4/21/11
The ACLU filed the case last summer on behalf of seven couples from several Montana cities, representing 14 gay men and lesbian women who are involved in what the agency called "committed, intimate, same-sex relationships" and raising children.
The ACLU claimed the state offers "numerous protections, rights and benefits" to "different-sex" couples that aren't available to same-sex couples.
Montana's Constitution doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and state law doesn't provide other provisions like "domestic partnerships" available in some other states.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Montana judge rejects gay couple rights suit" by The Associated Press 4/21/11
The gay couples weren't asking for the right in the lawsuit to marry, which the Montana Constitutional defines as between a man and a woman. Rather they wanted to be able to make burial, health care and other decisions, while enjoying such benefits as jointly filing taxes.
The attorney general's office has countered in court that Montana can't extend spousal benefits to gay couples because those benefits are limited to married couples by definition since Montana voters in 2004 approved the marriage amendment.
The state argued in court that the Legislature is free to create a new, separate class for couples regardless of sexual orientation. It argued such a policy choice should be made by the state, and not the courts.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Montana Family Foundation praises ruling favoring traditional marriage" by David Jay, KTVQ-TV2 (Billings, MT) 4/21/11
In his ruling, District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock dismissed the case. He stated he can not instruct the legislature to pass laws to give same sex couples the same rights as married couples.
"This court can not grant the relief that the Plantiffs seek," Sherlock wrote. "To do would violate the constitutional separation of powers existing in the state of Montanan."
On its website, the ACLU says it has not decided if it will appeal, but it disagrees with the decision.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)