Missouri Christians' Likely Big Win vs. Gay Agenda

In the wake of the Supreme Court's creation of same-sex "marriage," Missouri voters will soon be given the opportunity to amend their state constitution to protect the religious liberty of citizens from attacks by the sexual revolutionaries.  Senate Joint Resolution 39, passed 21-11 this morning, and is expected to pass the Missouri House, thus putting the measure to the voters.

UPDATE 3/16/16: 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

West Virginia Legislature Passes Religious Freedom Restoration Act

North Carolina Lawmakers to Overturn Gay/Transgender Agenda

Indiana Religious Liberty Law (to fight Gay Agenda) Jettisoned by Republicans

Arkansas Religious Freedom Law NOT Gay Enough

Religious Liberty in Homosexualists' Crosshairs

Also read how Missouri voters brought prayer back to public schools.

-- From "39-Hour Filibuster Over Gay Marriage Issue Ends in Missouri Senate" by CBS News (KMOX) & The Associated Press 3/9/16

The measure comes after bakers and florists have faced legal challenges in other states for declining to provide services for same-sex weddings due to their religious beliefs.

“No one should be compelled to make a work with their own hands that’s offensive to their beliefs,” Republican sponsor Sen. Bob Onder said during earlier debate on the measure.

Democrats fought the measure for days, saying it would allow discrimination against same-sex couples and could hurt the state economy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Missouri State Senators End Marathon Filibuster Over 'Religious Freedom' Bill" by Erik Ortiz and The Associated Press posted at NBC News 3/9/16

[Measure SRJ 39] proposes to amend the Missouri Constitution and prohibit the state from "penalizing clergy, religious organizations, and certain individuals for their religious beliefs concerning marriage between two people of the same sex."

Republican state Sen. Bob Onder, who sponsored the bill, said he believes the amendment "is entirely defensive, in that it prevents state and local governments from imposing penalties. It is a shield, not a sword."

Missouri's legislative session runs through mid-May, which leaves plenty of time for Resolution 39 to also move through the Republican-led House. It would then be submitted to statewide voters in either the August primary or November general election.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Epic Missouri Filibuster Over Bill Shielding Opponents Of Same-Sex Weddings Ends" by Merrit Kennedy, National Public Radio NPR 3/9/16

The proposed state constitutional amendment . . . states that clergy and places of worship would be protected should they decline to host or perform ceremonies and other services for same-sex couples because of their beliefs.

The measure would also shield vendors who refuse to provide services, and individuals who decline "to personally be a participant in a wedding or marriage."

St. Louis Public Radio says the bill sponsor argues it "would not harm the LGBT community or seek to revoke their right to marry."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Missouri 'religious freedom bill' passes as 39-hour filibuster ends" by Greg Botelho and Seth Kovar, CNN 3/9/16

Similar bills have come up in other states where Republicans hold sway, almost always bringing controversy with them. . . .

[However,] Missouri's legislation is different than most in that it involves amending the state's constitution and it has a narrow focus, according to its sponsor.

"We spent a lot of time writing it to avoid the controversies we've seen in other states," Republican Sen. Bob Onder said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Missouri Senate Filibusters Against Bill Protecting Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage" by Austin Huguelet And Richard Pérez-Peña, New York Times 3/8/16

. . . the Missouri bill, similar to one being considered in Georgia, would go further than any law now in place, prompting challenges that could keep the issue before the courts for years.

Donald Hinkle, the director of public policy for the Missouri Baptist Convention, which supports the measure, said he was confident of passage. “You’re talking about a state that voted 71 percent to 29 percent to say that marriage is between one man and one woman and put that in the Constitution,” he said, referring to a 2004 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.

Twenty-one states — including Indiana and Arkansas last year — have enacted what backers call religious freedom laws [RFRA], which do not mention same-sex couples but subject discrimination lawsuits to tough scrutiny if the discrimination is based on a defendant’s sincere religious belief.

. . . But the bill would also protect any religious organization acting “in accordance with a sincere religious belief” about same-sex marriage, in a passage that does not limit itself to weddings. And it gives a long list of things that qualify as religious organizations, including schools, charities and retirement homes, as long as their public identity and purpose are “in whole or in part religious.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Supreme Court Justice Scalia Said Government Should Favor God of the Bible

Nullify 'Gay Marriage:' S. Carolina; Other States

Conservative state legislatures across America will consider various measures in 2016 to counteract effects of the 2015 Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage, including a bill in South Carolina aimed at nullifying the same-sex "marriage" ruling.

"I think there's a lot of states that are looking at this and seeing what can be done to make sure that religious freedoms are respected."
-- Rep. Mike Cierpiot, Missouri House Majority Leader (30th District)

UPDATE 3/16/16: 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

'Gay Marriage' Stopped in Alabama by Judges

Homosexualists Battle Lawmakers in Indiana Over Religious Liberty

North Carolina Law Allows Magistrates to Refuse 'Gay Marriage'

Supreme Court's 'Gay Marriage' Ruling is Illegitimate, Scholars Say

Also read Catholic School Must Hire Homosexuals, Court Rules

And read Supreme Justice Scalia Says the Federal Government SHOULD Favor Religion

-- From "States plan renewed debate on LGBT rights, religious freedom" by David A. Lieb, Associated Press 1/5/16

There are 22 states with laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and 21 with laws limiting the government's ability to burden the free exercise of religion. But just four states — Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois and New Mexico — have both.

The ACLU will be seeking to expand the list of places barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It's targeting at least a half dozen states — Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania — that have Republican-led legislatures and also may be pivotal in presidential elections.

The Family Research Council, which opposed the Houston ordinance, is supporting state measures that would grant broad protections "from government discrimination" against people "who have a sincere belief — religious or not — in natural marriage," said Quena Gonzalez, the group's director of state and local affairs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read about the Gay Agenda strategy of attacking one town, or one state at a time, to elevate "gay rights" over religious liberty.

From "Spartanburg County lawmaker files bill to get rid of same-sex marriage" by Zach Fox, Spartanburg Herald Journal 1/5/16

[South Carolina state] Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Woodruff, and Rep. Mike Burns, R-Taylors, pre-filed a bill in the House to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He also aims for his bill to invalidate same-sex marriages in South Carolina. The bill is titled as the South Carolina Natural Marriage Defense Act.

"I represent the people, and the people have shown several times that they are opposed to this, and are in favor of traditional marriage," Chumley said.

The bill also proposes the South Carolina Attorney General to represent state officials in lawsuits relating to same sex-marriages.

The Supreme Court ruling in June legalizing same-sex marriage came down to a 5 to 4 vote, Chumley said. He said the split vote was indicative of the views of all Americans.

"Apparently, those four people believe like we do," he said. "I do believe that something that's a close vote like that sends a message, it's not cut and dry."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "South Carolina Bill Seeks to Nullify SCOTUS Opinion on Marriage" posted at Tenth Amendment Center 12/9/15

. . . [The House Bill H4513] legislation declares “It is the policy of the State of South Carolina to defend natural marriage as recognized by the people of this State in the Constitution and laws of the State of South Carolina.”

It further asserts, “Natural marriage between one man and one woman as recognized by the people of this State remains the law in South Carolina, regardless of any court decision to the contrary. A court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”

H4513 would also prohibit state agencies from enforcing any court order that has the effect of violating South Carolina’s laws protecting natural marriage, and would prohibit the state from applying any levy upon the property or arresting “any government official or individual who does not comply with any unlawful court order regarding natural marriage within South Carolina.”

Practically speaking, H4513 would require the state of South Carolina to defend a state or local official who found him or herself in a situation similar to Rowan County clerk Kim Davis in Kentucky when a federal judge required her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and threw her in jail when she refused to comply. It would prohibit the use of state facilities, and the assistance of state and local law enforcement in enforcing any federal rulings. These actions would undoubtedly make it difficult for the feds to enforce their will.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "South Carolina Bill Blocks Enforcement of Same-Sex Marriage Ruling" by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., posted at The New American 12/14/15

States, as creators of the federal government, are the arbiters of the limits of the latter’s power, and forcing them to accept the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex unions certainly falls outside those limits.

One way that states can continue simultaneously supporting the Constitution and their own sovereignty is by nullifying the federal court’s extra-constitutional edict. The South Carolina bill would take that state along this constitutionally sound course.

Nullification recognizes that states retain the power to invalidate any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

. . . Fortunately, Bill Chumley, Mike Burns, and several other state legislators across the country are stepping into the breach to restore the principles of federalism and limited government established by our Founding Fathers.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama's Homosexual Christmas Proclamation

And read Plural Marriage Now: 3 Gay Men 'Marry' — Polyamory

'Gay Marriage' Stopped in Alabama by Judges

Probate judges in more than ten percent of Alabama counties have lawfully refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses by following a half-century-old state law that allows counties to opt out of all marriage licenses.  One Alabama probate judge says that the U.S. Supreme Court's June Gay Agenda ruling should put the federal government in the "gay marriage" business, not states like Alabama, where it's illegal.

"In other words, same-sex marriage licenses issued by Alabama or by other states in contradiction to their own state laws should not be honored. . . . As a probate judge, I am currently compelled, and I believe wrongfully, to issue federally-created same-sex marriage licenses or face an onerous federal civil rights action."
-- Judge John Enslen, Elmore County, Alabama

UPDATE 3/16/16: 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Alabama, Other States

For background, read Alabama Supreme Court Says Ignore Federal Court — 'Gay Marriage'

UPDATE 10/9/15: Supreme Court's 'Gay Marriage' Ruling is Illegitimate, Scholars Say

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

North Carolina Law Allows Magistrates to Refuse 'Gay Marriage'

Gay American Courts Persecute Christian County Clerk Kim Davis

Homosexualist Oregon Persecutes Christian Judge

ACLU Sues Christians for Refusing 'Gay Marriage'

'Christian Rights' Lawsuit: Refused 'Gay Marriage'

Also read Alabama Supreme Court Says NO to Lesbian Adoption

-- From "Some Alabama Judges Not Issuing Any Marriage Licences" by Jay Reeves, Associated Press 10/3/15

The [1961] law, which records show passed unanimously, included this line: "Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties." Since the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling, some same-sex marriage opponents have used that word "may" to avoid issuing marriage licenses. So far, no one has sued them.

Nick Williams, a Baptist minister who also serves as probate judge in Washington County, is among those who have left the marriage license business. He says issuing a license for a same-sex union would violate his Christian beliefs.

Judges in three adjoining counties stopped issuing licenses for similar reasons, creating a region in southwestern Alabama where marriage licenses aren't available for 78,000 people. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama probate judge says federal government could issue same-sex marriage licenses" by Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal 10/7/15

An Alabama probate judge is asking the state supreme court to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages unless the licenses were issued by the federal government or states with laws legalizing such marriages.

. . . He says many licenses are already issued by federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal Communications Commission.

Another probate judge in Washington County, Nick Williams, has also asked the state supreme court to act. He maintains probate judges with religious objections should be allowed to refrain from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama probate judge: Let federal government issue same-sex marriage licenses" by Kent Faulk, The Birmingham News 10/6/15

The Elmore County probate judge [John Enslen], a strong critic of gay marriage, on Monday asked the Alabama Supreme Court to issue an order stating Alabama will no longer issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite the U.S. Supreme Court order in June legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

Enslen also asked that the Alabama justices issue an order declaring the state will only honor same-sex marriage licenses either issued by the federal government or a state that has a state law allowing gay marriage.

Enslen also states that since the federal government is the one imposing same-sex marriage on the states, it should be the one to enforce it. "Therefore, the recognition of same-sex marriage as a civil right under the United States Constitution vests the U.S. Congress with the authority and responsibility to enforce the right and to provide the appropriate licensing, the same as it exclusively does in many other areas of federal law," he wrote.

Both Enslen and Williams have stated they want the Alabama Supreme Court to issue an order declaring that its March 3 ruling – prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's order – that Alabama's ban on gay marriage was still in effect and probate judges were not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Other State Officials Say No to Same-Sex Marriage" by Arian Campo-Flores, Wall Street Journal 9/13/15

In North Carolina, all four magistrates in rural McDowell County have recused themselves from performing civil wedding ceremonies for any couples. The moves are allowed under a state law passed in June that allows certain public officials to avoid marriage duties if they have religious objections. So far, 32 magistrates across the state—about 5% of the total—have done so, according to the state Administrative Office of the Courts.

As a result of the void in McDowell County, magistrates from neighboring Rutherford County have been driving in to perform ceremonies three days a week, during reduced hours. Tonia Hampton, the McDowell County register of deeds, whose office issues marriage licenses, said the documents continue to be available during regular hours. “It’s business as usual for us,” she said.

While the new law prohibits registers of deeds, who are elected officials, from refusing to issue licenses, it allows their assistants and deputies to do so. Ms. Hampton wouldn’t say whether any staff members had recused themselves.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kim Davis isn't the only one refusing same-sex marriages" by USA Today Network 9/5/15

Despite the Supreme Court's 5-4 landmark ruling in the same-sex marriage case, many other local officials across the country are not giving up the fight.

In Granbury, Texas, a federal court in July compelled Hood County Clerk Katie Lang to issue a license to Granbury residents Joe Stapleton and Jim Cato; Texas law also requires clerks to record marriage licenses. By the time that case was settled, county taxpayers had to foot a $43,000 bill, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Lang still doesn't agree with same-sex marriage and says so on her website but is allowing deputies in her office to issue the licenses, something that [Kentucky County Clerk Kim] Davis objects to because the certificates bear her name as an elected official.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Religious Liberty is in the Homosexualists' Crosshairs

And read President Obama Invokes God: Gay Agenda Trumps Freedom of Religion

Louisiana Supremes Slam US Supremes—'Gay Marriage'

In setting aside a state homosexual lawsuit now moot after the recent blessing of the Gay Agenda by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Louisiana Supreme Court took the occasion to blast the highest court of the land for its "complete and unnecessary insult to the people of Louisiana" and for making "a mockery" of the Bill of Rights.

"It is a sad day in America when five lawyers beholden to none and appointed for life can rob the people of their democratic process, forcing so-called civil liberties regarding who can marry on all Americans when the issue was decided by the states as solemn expressions of the will of the people.  I wholeheartedly disagree and find that, rather than a triumph of constitutionalism, the opinion of these five lawyers is an utter travesty as is my constrained adherence to the 'law of the land' enacted not by the will of American people but by five judicial activists."
-- Justice Jeannette Theriol Knoll, Louisiana Supreme Court

UPDATE 3/16/16: 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

UPDATE 7/23/15: County Clerk Sues for 'Christian Rights,' Refuses 'Gay Marriage'

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Alabama Supreme Court Says Ignore Federal Court re: 'Gay Marriage'

The Gay 'Untied' States of America

Activist Judges Say Scalia Right on 'Gay Marriage'

Business, Pro Sports, GOP Urge Supreme Court to Go Gay

U.S. Catholic Bishops vs. Supreme Court Gay Agenda

UPDATE 7/28/15: Gay Agenda Destroys Everything it Contacts

-- From "Louisiana Justices Rebuke High Court on Gay Marriage" by Sabrina Canfield, Courthouse News Service, 7/8/15

Knoll went on to decry "the horrific impact" the U.S. Supreme Court justices "made on the democratic rights of the American people to define marriage and the rights stemming by operation of law therefrom."

"The five unelected judges' declaration that the right to marry whomever one chooses is a fundamental right is a mockery of those rights explicitly enumerated in those Bill of Rights," she continued. "Simply stated, it is a legal fiction imposed upon the entirety of this nation because these five people think it should be."

In their opinions, the Louisiana justices concurred that a same sex couple's union has to be recognized by the state and that one member of a female couple could potentially legally be recognized as a parent to her partner's biological son, but the justices were firm that they only concurred because they had to.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Louisiana Supreme Court justices denounce same-sex marriage ruling, calling it an 'insult,' 'utter travesty' with 'horrific impact'" by Lanie Lee Cook and Maya Lau, The New Orleans Advocate 7/9/15

Four justices weighed in on their own, issuing individual takes on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared same-sex marriages legal across the U.S.

Justice John Weimer emphasized that Louisiana’s constitutional amendment [defining one-man-one-woman marriage] was approved with 77.78 percent of the vote in 2004.

“The apparent and rapid shift in public sentiment on the issue before us has been profound. However, the role of the judiciary is not to weigh shifting public sentiment at any given moment, but to be steadfast in following the law duly enacted by the people and/or their representatives,” he wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Louisiana justice cites 'horrific impact' of Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling" by Jonah Hicap, Christian Today 7/9/15

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Jefferson Hughes III said "marriage is not only for the parties."

"Its purpose is to provide children with a safe and stable environment in which to grow. Its definition cannot be changed by legalisms," he wrote as he took aim at the US Supreme Court ruling.

Hughes expressed concerned about same-sex couples adopting children.

"The most troubling prospect of same sex marriage is the adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Louisiana Supremes: 'Marriage' ruling 'complete insult'" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 7/8/15

“Does the 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court automatically legalize this type of adoption? While the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy leaves it to the various courts and agencies to hash out these issues, I do not concede the reinterpretation of every statute premised upon traditional marriage,” [Hughes] warned.

“Our U.S. Constitution envisions change through democracy and reserves to the states and the people all powers not delegated to the federal government. … Unilaterally, these five lawyers took for themselves a question the Constitution expressly leaves to the people and about which the people have been in open debate – the true democratic process,” wrote Louisiana Justice Jeannette Knoll.

“This is not a constitutionally mandated decision, but a super-legislative imposition of the majority’s will over the solemn expression of the people evidenced in their state constitutional definitions of marriage.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Polygamy License Legitimacy Considered in Montana

Almost No Americans Want a 'Homosexual Marriage'

Religious Liberty in Homosexualists' Crosshairs

Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Christian Wedding Chapel

ACLU Sues Christians for Refusing 'Gay Marriage'

Business, Pro Sports, GOP Urge Supremes to Go Gay

Follow the money . . .

As Americans wait "on pins and needles" for nine unelected black-robed jurists to decide the fate of the nation, those pillars of society that deify money are filing their legal briefs insisting that the highest court of the land sacrifice the people's founding document to that most supreme Gay Agenda god.

"No religion's belief or practice should be allowed to restrict the rights of people to marry and receive equal protection under the law."
-- Rev. Gay Clark Jennings, president of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

PC MLB & NHL: Professional Baseball & Hockey Embrace Gay Agenda

Christian Sports Commentator Fired for Supporting Natural Marriage

Corporations Embrace Gay Agenda, With a Vengeance

Homosexual Lobby Purchases Elections & Same-sex 'Marriage'

Republicans Going Gay, to be 'Moderate' & Likeable

Republican Party Platform OKs Abortion and 'Gay Marriage'

Republican Strategy: Dump Old Uneducated Christian Voters

'Gay Marriage' is Christian in Presbyterian PCUSA, et. al.

Alabama Supreme Court Says Ignore Federal Court — 'Gay Marriage'

'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "Super Bowl, World Series champs back gay marriage at court" by The Associated Press 3/6/15

The reigning baseball and football champions, along with baseball's small-market Tampa Bay Rays, are among the thousands of businesses, religious groups, advocacy organizations and politicians who are filing legal briefs at the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage.

Roughly six dozen briefs backing pro-gay rights plaintiffs in the four states are expected by the Friday deadline. Included is a ''people's brief'' filed by the Human Rights Campaign with the signatures of 207,551 people.

Mayors of 226 U.S. cities also are expressing their support for same-sex marriage. Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley says he is not sure how his constituents feel about the issue, but said it wouldn't affect his view either way. "I don't think constitutional rights are subject to public opinion," Cranley said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Thousands sign court briefs supporting gay marriage" by Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press 3/6/15

With 2 ½ hours of oral arguments set for April 28, the Supreme Court could issue a ruling later this year that could overturn the bans or leave them in place, which would upset a patchwork of laws and court decisions that currently allow same-sex couples to marry in 37 states and the District of Columbia.

While many of the briefs came from groups who have long fought to have the bans reversed, support also came from more unexpected sources: More than 300 Republican, conservative and center-right activists and government officials signed a brief in support of overturning the bans. Another brief was signed by hundreds of U.S. companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Apple, Microsoft and more.

They ranged from the American Bar Association — which included a table of the many legal protections afforded legally married couples and their children that are denied same-sex couples and their families — to universities, organizations representing gay service members, Ohio's Cuyahoga County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and more.

"Inconsistent state marriage laws impose an added economic burden on American businesses at an estimated cost of over one billion dollars per year," said the brief filed by 379 signers, which included insurance companies, manufacturing giants, financial institutions and sports franchises, the New England Patriots, San Francisco Giants and Tampa Bay Rays among them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "379 Corporations Tell Supreme Court Gay Marriage Is Good for Business" by Pat Garofalo, U.S. News & World Report 3/6/15

In an amicus brief arguing that the court should legalize gay marriage across the country, 379 corporations and business organizations – including Apple, Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Goldman Sachs, Hilton, Verizon, Disney and even some professional sports teams – said, "Employees with partners of the same sex should be permitted to marry if they so choose, and then should be treated identically to their married heterosexual counterparts. State laws that require otherwise impose a significant burden on us and harm our ability to attract and retain the best employees. Such laws force businesses to uphold discriminatory laws that run counter to important corporate values. In the end, economic growth suffers."

"Employers are better served by a uniform marriage rule that gives equal dignity to employee relationships. Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity," they wrote. "Diversity and inclusion strengthen, not weaken, our businesses."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "More than 300 Republicans ask Supreme Court to back gay marriage" by Catalina Camia, USA TODAY 3/6/15

Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Mark Kirk and Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker are among 300 Republicans who signed onto a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage.

The Republican signatories include billionaire David Koch, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, top aides in Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, and a host of current and former members of Congress. Baker, elected in November, was the only sitting GOP governor to sign the brief.

“One of the points that I hope people appreciate when they read the brief is that supporting marriage equality is, in fact, the conservative position,” [former Republican National Committee chairman, now openly homosexual, Ken] Mehlman told The Boston Globe in an interview.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "More Than 300 Republicans Call on Supreme Court to Recognize Gay Marriage Nationally" by Zeke J Miller, Time Magazine 3/5/15

Among the signatories are 23 current and former Republicans members of the House of Representatives and Senate and seven current and former Governors. . . .

Some aides to Republican presidential candidates are hoping that if the Court’s rules in favor of the unions it will provide cover for their bosses, who are hoping to avoid talking about the issue. After the party’s 2012 electoral defeat, its autopsy found that gay rights issues are a gateway subject not just for LGBT voters, but also for young voters of all stripes. “We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too,” the Growth and Opportunity Project report stated.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie both dropped opposition to same-sex unions in their state after court rulings forced their hand, but they remain personally opposed. After marriages began in his state in January, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called for respect from all sides. “I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue — including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty,” he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Jeb Bush Makes A Big [Homosexual] Hire For 2016" by Christina Wilkie, Huffington Post 2/20/15

Tim Miller, a rising star in the world of Republican political opposition research, has joined Jeb Bush's political action committee as a senior adviser. . . .

For Jeb Bush, an establishment candidate with a reputation for reasoned and well-informed policy positions, Miller promises to bring a communications style to the campaign that is sharper and grittier than the candidate's own. . . .

Miller, who is openly gay, is no stranger to presidential politics, having previously worked on the campaigns of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) and Arizona Sen. John McCain (R).

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Over 300 Republicans Petition Supreme Court to Legalize Gay Marriage" by Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor 3/7/15

Christian groups say the people and their elected representatives, and not unelected judges, should decide if states should legally recognize gay marriage, which is legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

Central to the case are two questions, whether states are required to license marriages between same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which the Michigan case has to decide; and whether the amendment requires states to recognize such marriages when licensed by other states – which the Ohio and Tennessee cases have to decide. The Kentucky case includes both.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission . . . [said] this case could potentially transform the cultural landscape of America.

"We should pray for the Court, that they will not seek to redefine marriage," he said. "Marriage was not created by government action, and shouldn't be re-created by government action. Even more than that, we should pray for churches who will know how to articulate and embody a Christian vision of marriage as the one flesh union of a man and a woman in the tumultuous years to come."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Confirmed: President Obama is Liar in Chief RE 'Gay Marriage'

List of Amici (Republicans)

Ala. Supreme Says Ignore Fed. Court—'Gay Marriage'

In a letter to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore provided his legal review of U.S. District Judge Callie V.S."Ginny" Granade's ruling that the one-man-one-woman marriage amendment to the Alabama Constitution (passed by 81% of the state's voters in 2006) violated the U.S. Constitution.  Justice Moore advised Gov. Bentley that state courts need NOT abide by Judge Granade's ruling because it violates the state’s constitution — only such a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court would be valid; therefore, probate judges are NOT to begin issuing same-sex "marriage" licenses.





UPDATE 3/6/15: Alabama Supreme Court Halts ALL Same-sex "Marriages" (see excerpts below)

UPDATE 10/7/15: 'Gay Marriage' Stopped in Alabama by Judges

For background, read 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Court, on to Supreme Court

Also read the increasing number of court rulings AGAINST the redefinition of marriage.

And read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

From "Alabama Supreme Court Justice calls same-sex marriage ruling 'tyranny'" by Matt Bradwell, UPI 1/28/15

In the letter [to Gov. Bentley], Moore claims the District Court's ruling "raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction" and he even goes as far as to assert the ruling was an "unlawful opinion" and act of "tyranny."

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade ruled Alabama's law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and actually harmed the children its supporters attempted to frame their defense around.

Within a day of sending the letter to Bentley, civil rights group The Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] filed an ethics complaint against Moore with the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says federal judge's ruling on gay marriage not binding" by Mike Cason, The Birmingham News 1/28/15

Moore said his letter to the governor was not public comment on the case. He said as chief justice he is also the top administrator of the state court system.

"My duty as chief justice and administrative head of the court system is to enlighten those courts under my authority as to what the law is in this matter," Moore said.

"And the law is clearly that federal district courts and appellate courts are only persuasive authority to the courts of this state because the judges of state courts are equally competent to interpret federal law."

"Many states have just caved to it," Moore said. "They absolutely have. When a federal district judge rules, that's it. But they didn't have to.

"And I'm saying we don't have to. And it's in accordance with the law. It's not defiance."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore Threatens To Defy 'Tyranny' Of Federal Courts On Gay Marriage" by Ryan J. Reilly, Huffington Post 1/27/15

Moore's letter to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) came a few days after a federal judge in the state ruled that Alabama's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay citizens. The ruling in Alabama is currently stayed for two weeks to allow the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether the marriages should continue to be delayed until the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans later this year.

While he didn't spell out exactly how he planned to defy the ruling of a federal court, Moore said he would "continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution," which has an amendment that bans same-sex marriage. Moore also pointed out rulings from the Supreme Court of Alabama -- from 1870 and 1904 -- that called marriage a "divine institution" and a "sacred relation."

Moore even quoted a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 1885 (which was later quoted in a 1908 Supreme Court case) that he said indicated the court recognized the importance of marriage and family. He said the "destruction of that institution is upon us by federal courts using specious pretexts based on the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses" of the Constitution. He said that 44 federal courts have "imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the union."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Chief Justice of Alabama Supreme Court Against Gay Marriage" posted at JD Journal 1/28/15

In the letter, Moore wrote, “I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them. I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama.”

A constitutional law expert from the University of Alabama School of Law, Ronald Krotoszynski, said that the letter from Moore will carry very little weight. The reason for this is that federal constitutional law overrides that of the individual state constitutions.

“There is no credible legal argument that an order from a federal judge with jurisdiction over a matter isn’t binding on a state government,” he said.

Governor Bentley has said that he is in support of the state’s gay marriage ban and will fight to uphold it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says he will continue to recognize ban on same-sex marriage" by Mike Cason, The Birmingham News 1/27/15

[Gov.] Bentley issued a statement today after Moore's letter was released.

"The people of Alabama elected me to uphold our state Constitution, and when I took the oath of office last week, that is what I promised to do," the governor said.

"The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution. I am disappointed in Friday's ruling, and I will continue to oppose this ruling. The Federal government must not infringe on the rights of states."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Defies Federal Court on Gay Marriage; SPLC Files Ethics Complaint" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 1/29/15

Alabama's government has opted to continue defending the constitutional amendment, filing a request to grant a stay until the US Supreme Court renders a decision on the matter.

Some observers, reported Fox News, believe that the ruling, even if it takes effect, may have a more limited scope than assumed.

"The Alabama Probate Judges' Association maintains that Friday's ruling applies only to the parties in that case, and that it doesn't require judges to issue marriage licenses to other same-sex couples," noted Fox [News].

Filed Wednesday, the SPLC's complaint was brought before the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama and alleged that "Moore's actions violate Alabama's Canons of Judicial Ethics in numerous and significant regards."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Roy Moore denounces same-sex marriage ruling" by Brian Lyman, Montgomery Advertiser 1/27/15

. . . Rep. Patricia Todd, Alabama's only openly gay legislator, threatened to reveal which "pro-family value" politicians were having extramarital affairs if they continued criticizing gay marriage as immoral.

"I'm sick of the hypocrisy. If you start disparaging my [sexually deviant] community, and I know that you are not exactly the family values person that you put yourself out to be, well, then, beware," Todd, D-Birmingham, said.

Moore apparently was not worried.

Todd, who first made her threat on Facebook, has yet to follow through, and has acknowledged that to do so risked slander.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Letter from Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore to Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley" 1/27/15

The recent ruling of Judge Callie Granade of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama has raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction over the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment. Art, I, § 36.03, Ala, Const. of 1901.

As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage The people of this state have specifically recognized in our Constitution that marriage is “[a] sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman”; that “[a] marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state”; and that “[al union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex. . . shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state.” Art. I, § 36.03(c), (b) & (g), Ala. Const. of 1901.

The Supreme Court of Alabama has likewise described marriage as “a divine institution,” imposing upon the parties “higher moral and religious obligations than those imposed by any mere human institution or government.” Hughes v. Hughes, 44 Ala. 698, 703 (1870). In Smith v. Smith, 141 Ala. 590, 592, 37 So. 638, 639 (1904), this Court again referred to marriage as a sacred relation.

Even the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the basic foundation of marriage and family upon which our Country rests is “the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885) (quoted in United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 401 (1908)).

Today the destruction of that institution is upon us by federal courts using specious pretexts based on the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the United States Constitution. As of this date, 44 federal courts have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states. If we are to preserve that “reverent morality which is our source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement,” then we must act to oppose such tyranny!

On December 26, 1825, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

I see as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers foreign and domestic and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court the doctrines of the President and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact [US, Constitution], acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves, all functions foreign and domestic.

Letter to William Branch Giles, December 26, 1825

Jefferson’s words precisely express my sentiments on this occasion. Our State Constitution and our morality are under attack by a federal court decision that has no basis in the Constitution of the United States. Nothing in the United States Constitution grants to the federal government the authority to desecrate the institution of marriage. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const. Amend. X. An infringement upon the definition of marriage affects all that have entered into it in the past as well as all who will enter in the future.

To read the entire letter above, CLICK HERE.

From "States Renew Fight to Stop Same-Sex Marriage" by Richard Fausset And Alan Blinder, New York Times 1/28/15

Republican state legislators in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas have introduced bills this year that would prohibit state or local government employees from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, despite federal court rulings declaring bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in those states and questions about the constitutionality of the proposed state laws. The bills would also strip the salaries of employees who issued the licenses.

Proponents of same-sex marriage contend that most of the state bills are almost certainly unconstitutional. And even in conservative-dominated statehouses, the chances of passage are unclear, given disagreements within the Republican Party on whether same-sex marriage should be a priority issue. Some experts say they could face sharp rebukes from judges who have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

Still, the bills probably foreshadow the kinds of fights that may continue to rage even if the United States Supreme Court eventually rules that same-sex marriages must be allowed in all 50 states. This month, the Supreme Court justices agreed to hear a case that could resolve whether same-sex marriage, currently allowed in 36 states and the District of Columbia, should be the law of the land.

The clash of religious principle with the rulings of the federal courts is perhaps most evident in North Carolina, where at least six magistrate judges, who are called upon to perform civil marriages, quit their jobs after a federal judge approved same-sex marriage there in October.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 3/4/15: From "A defiant Alabama regains ground against gay marriage" by Jay Reeves, Associated Press

The Alabama Supreme Court ordered county probate judges to uphold the state ban pending a final ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which hears arguments in April on whether gay couples nationwide have a fundamental right to marry and whether states can ban such unions.

The all-Republican court ruled 7-1 that Alabama's 68 probate judges must stop issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, despite a ruling by Granade that the ban is unconstitutional.

Montgomery County Probate Judge Steven Reed, a Democrat and one of the first to issue gay-marriage licenses following a January ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie Granade in Mobile, said he was duty-bound to turn gays and lesbians away again, for now. But he also suggested that he would join a new round of appeals.

Before Tuesday's ruling, 48 of the state's 67 counties were acknowledging that Alabama had become the 37th U.S. state where gays can legally wed, according to the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay marriage nationwide. By Wednesday afternoon, the group couldn't find any county issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 3/3/15: From "Alabama Court Orders a Halt to Same-Sex Marriage Licenses" by Campbell Robertson, New York Times

In the decision, the judges insisted they could “interpret the United States Constitution independently from, and even contrary to, federal courts,” and did just that. They took on not just Judge Granade’s ruling point by point but also took issue with the United States Supreme Court’s ruling striking down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. The judges said marriage is a state matter, but also made a more sweeping case, maintaining that only marriage between a man and a woman “provides the optimum environment for defining the responsibilities of parents and for raising children to become productive members of society.”

“Government has an obvious interest in offspring and the consequences that flow from the creation of each new generation, which is only naturally possible in the opposite-sex relationship, which is the primary reason marriage between men and women is sanctioned by state law,” the court ruled.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 3/6/15: From "Alabama Supreme Court first in nation to defy federal court gay marriage order" by Kent Faulk, The Birmingham News

[Chief Justice Roy] Moore abstained from voting on the Alabama Supreme Court's order this week because he said he didn't want the appearance of impropriety because of his previous public stances against gay marriage.

"I can't explain why more than 20 other states have bowed down to unlawful federal authority but Alabama is not one of them," Moore said. "A federal judge has no authority to overturn a state constitutional amendment in the face of a state court's opinion on the same matter."

Only three states have adopted same-sex marriage by referendum of the people, several state legislatures passed laws allowing it, and seven or eight state supreme courts and federal district orders in about 20 states have been issued to toss out bans and allow it.

"We applaud the Alabama Supreme Court for taking the courageous step of standing up to a blatant overreach by a federal judge and instead choosing to uphold the rule of law and the state's constitutional amendment protecting time-honored marriage," Tim Wildmon, President of American Family Association, stated in a press release.

"For far too long, we have seen errant federal judges unilaterally take the law into their own hands and strike down duly passed marriage protection provisions," Wildmon stated. "The Alabama Supreme Court has shown that it does not take kindly to one federal judge upending state law and overruling the voice of thousands of Alabama voters. We hope and pray that other courts will follow suit and uphold the law, rather than cave to orders to ignore it."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

What's next? Read New York Incestuous Marriage OK: Unanimous Appeals Court and also read Teen Girl to Marry Father in New Jersey—Adult Incest is Legal

UPDATE 3/24/15: 'Husband' Impregnates Both 'Married' Lesbian Wives (Polyamory)

Also read Pedophiles Win in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- that's because Pedophilia is a Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay'

LSU Homosexualists Protest Louisiana Prayer Rally

As many as 7,000 Christians gathered Saturday on the LSU campus in Baton Rouge for "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis" with the Louisiana governor as headline speaker, but the LSU academia could only rouse a paltry few hundred of their faithful Gay Agenda advocates outside, while inside . . .

“It's about praying to God. It's about coming together. . . . today is all about a spiritual revival.”
-- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, self-described "evangelical Catholic" since high school (he was raised Hindu)

For background, read Liberals Launch Salvo at Gov. Jindal Prayer Rally

Also read Liberal Media Ignore 40,000 National Prayer Events even though there's a long list of states enacting laws to bring prayer back into public view.

In addition, read myriad examples of censorship of "politically incorrect" speech on college campuses across America.





-- From "Bobby Jindal Headlines All-Day Prayer Rally In Baton Rouge" by Melinda Deslatte, Associated Press 1/24/15

The rally attracted thousands to the basketball arena on LSU's campus but drew controversy both because of the group hosting it, the American Family Association [AFA], and Jindal's well-advertised headlining appearance [at this event, which was not publicly embraced by local Catholic leaders].

Holding his Bible, the two-term Republican governor opened the event by urging a revival to "begin right here, right here in our hearts." Later Saturday afternoon, he described his conversion to Christianity as a teenager.

"Today is about humbling ourselves before the Lord. Today we repent for our sins," he said. Later Jindal told attendees: "We can't just elect a candidate to fix our country ... We need a spiritual revival to fix our country."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "At controversial prayer rally, Jindal calls for spiritual revival" by Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post 1/24/15

The event drew protests outside the basketball arena where several hundred were gathered because of accusations that the American Family Association promotes discrimination against gays and is hostile to non-Christians. Jindal briefly referred to the protests in his appearance, asking the rally's attendees to pray for the demonstrators.

Otherwise, he stuck to his personal story, describing his seven-year path to Christianity as he paced the stage in jeans, a blazer, and a TED-speech style microphone headset. He spoke of a high school friend who had told him that he would be missed when the friend and his family went to heaven but Jindal did not. Jindal recalled a girl in high school who said she wanted to grow up to be a Supreme Court justice, so she could "save innocent human lives" from abortion. He spoke of a revelation as he watched a video about Jesus dying on the cross.

By hosting the event, Jindal was unable to attend a more prominent gathering of conservatives being held simultaneously in Iowa. The Iowa Freedom Summit drew a series of possible Republican presidential contenders, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "AFA prayer rally at LSU featuring governor provokes protests" by Nancy Cook, KTAL-TV6 (Texarkana, TX / Shreveport, LA) 1/25/15

"Twenty-seven years ago, I came to Christ as a teenager right here at this campus at Chapel on the campus. It is amazing to me that 27 years later, I'd be able, as Governor, to invite people to come back and offer spiritual renewal and revival that we so desperately need in our state," Jindal said.

But members of LGBTQ communities from around the state, as well as LSU students and faculty, were not buying it, or anyway were not buying that the event should be held on the LSU campus.

The LSU Faculty Senate, in fact, passed a resolution opposing the prayer rally, in part because it was funded by the AFA, which it said was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The AFA, the resolution claimed, demonizes and makes false claims “about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people, Jews, Muslims, Hispanics, Native Americans and atheists.” The resolution said the event contridicted LSU’s mission “to use its extensive resources to solve economic, environmental and social challenges.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Thousands turn out for Bobby Jindal's prayer rally at LSU; students, activists protest too" by Elizabeth Crisp, The New Orleans Advocate 1/24/15

Outside LSU’s Pete Maravich Assembly Center, about 400 LSU students, faculty and others peacefully demonstrated, calling for equality for gay people and lesbians, an end to education funding cuts, and unity among the races and religions. Despite the controversy and concern it spawned in the weeks leading up to Jindal’s much-discussed prayer rally, those who attended said they left the event feeling uplifted.

Shamaka Schumake, of Baton Rouge, was among the protestors outside the PMAC. She said she wanted to get involved in the protest because of what she sees as anti-Muslim and anti-gay rhetoric from AFA and others involved.

Though [Jindal] and others have stressed repeatedly that the prayer rally wasn’t political, the event offered Jindal another chance to court evangelicals and the Christian right as he weighs a run for president. Critics had accused him of putting on a political show, just days after his supporters launched a political action committee that would set up a financial framework if he decides to seek the GOP nomination.

He also spoke briefly to an anti-abortion rally at the outdoors Greek Theater on campus while the prayer rally was in progress nearby.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Potential 2016 candidates road test messages on immigration, marriage" by Rebecca Kaplan, CBS News 1/25/15

"If I do decide to run [for president] I think this country, I think our nation, needs leaders who have the courage to speak the truth to us. And unfortunately we don't have that right now," Jindal said. "I'll give you an example: Earlier this week I gave a speech in London where I talked about the threats of radical Islamic terrorism. I know it made a lot of people upset, but we need leaders to tell us the truth. For example, people coming to our country need to integrate, need to assimilate."

Jindal . . . reiterated his believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and took a shot at those politicians who have changed their stance on the issue.

"I know that many politicians are evolving, so-called evolving on this issue based on the polls. I don't change my views based on the polls," Jindal said.

He noted that Louisiana has a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and said that if the court handed down a ruling that invalidated it, he would urge lawmakers in Washington, D.C. to pass a constitutional amendment that allowed states to continue defining marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Atheists, Liberals Lament Recent Supreme Court Religious Liberty Rulings including the ruling that Christians Are Free to Pray in Jesus' Name at Government Meetings

And read Public Prayer: Poll Shows Vast Majority of Americans Want it

In addition, read President Obama Provokes Second 'In God We Trust' Movement

Few Judges vs 5 Million Fla. Voters—'Gay' Marriage

In 2008, an overwhelming majority (62%) of Florida citizens voted to preserve the definition of natural marriage, but now a handful of judges have silenced the voice of five million voters by changing the definition of marriage to include two men, or conversely, two women.

Further unraveling of the definition will occur, as legal logic must dictate.

For background, read 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Court, on to Supreme Court

And read the increasing number of court rulings AGAINST the redefinition of marriage.

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

-- From "Gay marriage ban ends as couples wed throughout Florida" by Mike Schneider, Associated Press 1/6/15

[Today] U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle's ruling that Florida's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional took effect in all 67 counties.

Florida — the third-most populous state, with 19.9 million people — becomes the 36th state where gay marriage is legal. Seventy percent of Americans now live in states where same-sex couples can legally wed.

"The day is going to come very soon where America is going to wake up and say, 'Whoa! Wait a second! I wanted two guys to live together. I didn't want the fundamental transformation of society,'" said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy council. He led the petition drive to put the gay marriage ban on the ballot back in 2008.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Same-sex marriages begin in Miami-Dade County" by Patricia Mazzei and Steve Rothaus, Miami Herald 1/6/15

[Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Sarah] Zabel declared Florida’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional in July. But she stayed her decision, pending appeal [until yesterday].

In August, U.S. District Judge Robert N. Hinkle of Tallahassee also overturned the ban. But Hinkle, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, stayed his decision till the end of the day Monday to provide time for legal appeals. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican who vigorously defended the ban, sought extensions of the stay from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Both turned her down.

Bondi’s office appeared to concede defeat Monday afternoon.

Last year, Zabel was the second state judge — after Luis Garcia in the Keys — to overturn the 2008 amendment that required marriages to be between a man and a woman. Four South Florida judges sided with same-sex couples who either sought to marry or divorce, or to have the state recognize their out-of-state marriage. The other two judges hailed from Broward and Palm Beach counties.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Republican leaders silent as gay marriages become legal in Florida" by Michael Van Sickler and Mary Ellen Klas, Miami Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau 1/5/15

As he prepared to attend inaugural festivities in Tallahassee, Gov. Rick Scott had his office repeat a prepared statement from last week when asked about a Miami-Dade judge’s decision to allow gay marriages.

“We are working with our agencies to follow the court’s decision,” said Jeri Bustamante, a spokeswoman, in an email. Asked if the state planned to drop its appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Bustamante replied that Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi “is handling this.”

Bondi wouldn’t directly comment on Monday’s developments. When asked about what happens next, her spokesman, Whitney Ray, replied in an email that “the judge has ruled, and we wish these couples the best.”

The silence from Florida Republican leaders was deafening.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "As gay marriages begin in Florida, Supreme Court is set to meet on issue" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post 1/5/15

[Supreme Court] justices refused — over the objections of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — to extend a stay [for Florida], even though the issue was on appeal. A federal judge’s order ruling the state’s ban unconstitutional has not yet been reviewed by the next court up the ladder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

On Friday, Supreme Court justices will meet in private to consider whether to act on cases that could provide a nationwide answer on whether same-sex marriages must be allowed. On the same day, a federal appeals court will consider bans in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

The justices this week will be considering petitions from five states where lower-court judges, bucking a nationwide trend, upheld laws banning same-sex marriage and barring the recognition of such unions performed in states where they are legal.

Without explanation, the justices in October passed up that chance. But that was before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati ruled that there was no constitutional right to marriage that must be extended to gay couples and that states were free to define marriage as they wished.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read about so-called churches diving into the abyss of homosexual advocacy.

And read Pastors Who Won't Confront the Gay Agenda Deserve Hell, Says Graham

'Gay Marriage' Loses in Fed. Court, on to Supremes

Yesterday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled 2 to 1 that Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution provide that states may define marriage as between one and one woman.  This ruling likely means that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this marriage issue by July 2015.

For background, read the increasing number of court rulings AGAINST the redefinition of marriage.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "Appeals court upholds bans on same-sex marriage for first time" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post 11/6/14

The decision overturned lower-court rulings in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky and makes the 6th Circuit the first appeals court to uphold state bans since the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2013.

[U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey S.] Sutton, writing for himself and Judge Deborah L. Cook, rejected the [erroneous] analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Windsor that has led other appeals courts to strike the bans on same-sex marriage. He repeatedly returned to the principle of democratic action, saying advocates of same-sex marriage would be better off by persuading their fellow citizens than by asking federal judges to force the issue.

Sutton, a favorite of the conservative legal establishment and frequently mentioned as a potential Supreme Court nominee under a Republican president, was nominated by President George W. Bush. Cook was also nominated by Bush.

While it is possible the full 6th Circuit could take up the issue — a delay that would mean the Supreme Court would not receive the cases in time to hear them this term — lawyers on both sides of the case pledged to move quickly.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Michigan Gov. Snyder says defending gay marriage ban a duty, 'not a matter of personal preference'" by Jonathan Oosting, MLive.com (Booth Newspapers, Grand Rapids, MI) 11/6/14

Michigan’s gay marriage ban remains in place after a federal court ruling on Thursday, and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette both made clear they will continue to defend it.

“When I became governor, I took an oath to support and defend our state constitution, without exceptions,” Snyder said in a statement, referencing the 2004 voter-approved amendment that defined marriage as between one woman and one man.

“My obligation to carry out that oath is not a matter of personal preference. As I have said throughout this process, I will respect the court’s decision as it examines the legality of same-sex marriage.”

Snyder has consistently declined to take a stance on the underlying issue — whether the same-sex marriage ban is good public policy — which has led to criticism from gay rights supporters.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Sixth Circuit Rules in Favor of State Marriage Laws" by Ed Whelan, National Review Online 11/6/14

Here’s a summary [of the ruling]:

1. The Supreme Court’s summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson (1972) binds federal courts of appeals to hold that state laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman are constitutional. The Court’s ruling last year in Windsor v. United States doesn’t overrule Baker, nor does it clash with it. Neither of the two preconditions for ignoring Supreme Court precedent applies. Nor do the Court’s recent denials of certiorari in other marriage cases have any bearing.

2. Under the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, state marriage laws are clearly constitutional.

3. State marriage laws easily survive rational-basis review. It is rational to define marriage as a male-female union because (a) governmental recognition of marriage operates to regulate the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse, and (b) it’s reasonable for the people of a state to assess how the benefits and burdens of redefining marriage are playing out in other states before they decide whether to take that step. “Any other approach would create line-drawing problems of its own.”

To read the entire summary above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court breaks ranks, upholds marriage bans" by Tom Strode, Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press 11/7/14

The same-sex couples who lost could ask for “en banc” review of the ruling, which would include all the members of the Sixth Circuit Court, or they could appeal to the Supreme Court. If they take the latter course and the justices grant review, the high court could issue a decision on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage before its current term ends next summer. Both sides of the legal battle have urged the Supreme Court to rule soon on the matter.

Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), said in a written statement, “This circuit split means that the Supreme Court's ignoring of this issue will not be able to continue. The people of the states have the right to recognize marriage the way virtually every human culture has, as the union of a man and a woman. The Supreme Court should affirm this right, for all fifty states.”

Byron Babione, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said in written release, “As the [Sixth] Circuit rightly concluded, the Constitution does not demand that one irreversible view of marriage be judicially imposed on everyone. The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - File Name: 14a0275p.06 by Judges Jeffrey S. Sutton and Deborah L. Cook 11/6/14

This is a case about change — and how best to handle it under the United States Constitution. From the vantage point of 2014, it would now seem, the question is not whether American law will allow gay couples to marry; it is when and how that will happen. That would not have seemed likely as recently as a dozen years ago. For better, for worse, or for more of the same, marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.

But things change, sometimes quickly. . . .

What remains is a debate about whether to allow the democratic processes begun in the States to continue in the four States of the Sixth Circuit or to end them now by requiring all States in the Circuit to extend the definition of marriage to encompass gay couples. . . .

Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us — just two of us in truth — to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. What we have authority to decide instead is a legal question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a State from defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?

. . . By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g., with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning.

To take another rational explanation for the decision of many States not to expand the definition of marriage, a State might wish to wait and see before changing a norm that our society (like all others) has accepted for centuries. That is not preserving tradition for its own sake. No one here claims that the States' original definition of marriage was unconstitutional when enacted. The plaintiffs' claim is that the States have acted irrationally in standing by the traditional definition in the face of changing social mores. Yet one of the key insights of federalism is that it permits laboratories of experimentation  —accent on the plural — allowing one State to innovate one way, another State another, and a third State to assess the trial and error over time. As a matter of state law, the possibility of gay marriage became real in 2003 with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courtfs decision in Goodridge. Eleven years later, the clock has not run on assessing the benefits and burdens of expanding the definition of marriage. Eleven years indeed is not even the right timeline. The fair question is whether in 2004, one year after Goodridge, Michigan voters could stand by the traditional definition of marriage. How can we say that the voters acted irrationally for sticking with the seen benefits of thousands of years of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage in the face of one year of experience with a new definition of marriage? A State still assessing how this has worked, whether in 2004 or 2014, is not showing irrationality, just a sense of stability and an interest in seeing how the new definition has worked elsewhere. Even today, the only thing anyone knows for sure about the long-term impact of redefining marriage is that they do not know. A Burkean sense of caution does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, least of all when measured by a timeline less than a dozen years long and when assessed by a system of government designed to foster step-by-step, not sudden winner-take-all, innovations to policy problems.

. . . Any other approach would create line-drawing problems of its own. Consider how plaintiffs' love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States' male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable — if the claimants' theory of rational basis review prevails.

. . . In considering the claimants' arguments that they have a fundamental right to marry each other, we must keep in mind that something can be fundamentally important without being a fundamental right under the Constitution. Otherwise, state regulations of many deeply important subjects — from education to healthcare to living conditions to decisions about when to die — would be subject to unforgiving review. They are not. . . . Instead, the question is whether our nation has treated the right as fundamental and therefore worthy of protection under substantive due process. More precisely, the test is whether the right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such that "neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed." . . . That requirement often is met by placing the right in the Constitution, most obviously in (most of) the guarantees in the Bill of Rights. . . . But the right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist.

That leaves the other option — that, even though a proposed right to same-sex marriage does not appear in the Constitution, it turns on bedrock assumptions about liberty. This too does not work. . . .

The theory of the living constitution rests on the premise that every generation has the right to govern itself. If that premise prevents judges from insisting on principles that society has moved past, so too should it prevent judges from anticipating principles that society has yet to embrace. It follows that States must enjoy some latitude in matters of timing, for reasonable people can disagree about just when public norms have evolved enough to require a democratic response. Today's case captures the point. Not long ago American society took for granted the rough correlation between marriage and creation of new life, a vision under which limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples seemed natural. Not long from now, if current trends continue, American society may define marriage in terms of affirming mutual love, a vision under which the failure to add loving gay couples seems unfair. Today's society has begun to move past the first picture of marriage, but it has not yet developed a consensus on the second.

If, before a new consensus has emerged on a social issue, federal judges may decide when the time is ripe to recognize a new constitutional right, surely the people should receive some deference in deciding when the time is ripe to move from one picture of marriage to another. So far, not a single United States Supreme Court Justice in American history has written an opinion maintaining that the traditional definition of marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment. No one would accuse the Supreme Court of acting irrationally in failing to recognize a right to same-sex marriage in 2013. Likewise, we should hesitate to accuse the States of acting irrationally in failing to recognize the right in 2004 or 2006 or for that matter today. Federal judges engaged in the inherent pacing that comes with living constitutionalism should appreciate the inherent pacing that comes with democratic majorities deciding within reasonable bounds when and whether to embrace an evolving, as opposed to settled, societal norm. The one form of pacing is akin to the other, making it anomalous for the Court to hold that the States act unconstitutionally when making reasonable pacing decisions of their own.

. . . For all of the power that comes with the authority to interpret the United States Constitution, the federal courts have no long-lasting capacity to change what people think and believe about new social questions. If the plaintiffs are convinced that litigation is the best way to resolve today's debate and to change heads and hearts in the process, who are we to say? Perhaps that is not the only point, however. Yes, we cannot deny thinking the plaintiffs deserve better — earned victories through initiatives and legislation and the greater acceptance that comes with them. But maybe the American people too deserve better — not just in the sense of having a say through representatives in the legislature rather than through representatives in the courts, but also in the sense of having to come face to face with the issue. . . .

Last, but not least, federal courts never expand constitutional guarantees in a vacuum. What one group wants on one issue from the courts today, another group will want on another issue tomorrow. The more the Court innovates under the Constitution, the more plausible it is for the Court to do still more — and the more plausible it is for other advocates on behalf of other issues to ask the Court to innovate still more. And while the expansion of liberal and conservative constitutional rights will solve, or at least sidestep, the amendment-difficulty problem that confronts many individuals and interest groups, it will exacerbate the judge-confirmation problem. Faith in democracy with respect to issues that the Constitution has not committed to the courts reinforces a different, more sustainable norm.

. . . This case ultimately presents two ways to think about change. One is whether the Supreme Court will constitutionalize a new definition of marriage to meet new policy views about the issue. The other is whether the Court will begin to undertake a different form of change — change in the way we as a country optimize the handling of efforts to address requests for new civil liberties.

If the Court takes the first approach, it may resolve the issue for good and give the plaintiffs and many others relief. But we will never know what might have been. If the Court takes the second approach, is it not possible that the traditional arbiters of change — the people — will meet today's challenge admirably and settle the issue in a productive way? In just eleven years, nineteen States and a conspicuous District, accounting for nearly forty-five percent of the population, have exercised their sovereign powers to expand a definition of marriage that until recently was universally followed going back to the earliest days of human history. That is a difficult timeline to criticize as unworthy of further debate and voting. When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.

For these reasons, we reverse.

To read the entire court ruling above, CLICK HERE.

Also read New York Incestuous Marriage OK: Unanimous Appeals Court Ruling