gay marriage

In what's starting to look like a case of history repeating itself, a contestant in the upcoming Miss California pageant has let it slip that she's opposed to gay marriage. And liberals are having fits.

In this case, the city council of Beverly Hills - the very city which Lauren Ashley will represent - has condemned her views and is demanding that the pageant not allow her to use the moniker "Miss Beverly Hills" in the competition.

Via Fox News:

Former Miss California Carrie Prejean isn't the only beauty queen open to expressing her objection to same-sex marriage. Miss Beverly Hills 2010 Lauren Ashley is also speaking out in support of traditional nuptials.

Miss Beverly Hills and upcoming Miss California contender Lauren Ashley spoke out to Pop Tarts earlier this week against gay marriage -- and as a result she has been publicly condemned by the City of Beverly Hills.  read more »

Gay marriage activists in Texas are trying to use divorce as a means to legalizing gay marriage in that state.  And it looks like they've found at least one judge that's willing to help them do it.

Even though only five states currently recognize gay marriage - and even though Texas isn't one of them (having passed a constitutional amendment on the issue) - a state judge has granted a "divorce" to a gay couple in that state who were "married" in another state.

Thankfully, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has stepped in to stand up for the voters in his state.  After the judges decision, Abbott released a statement saying:

"The Court has no legal authority to
grant this divorce, and as a result, the State must intervene in this
case to defend the Texas Constitution."

While it might seem kind of obvious to most people (especially Texas voters) that you grant end (by way of divorce) something that state law doesn't recognize as having ever begun.  Which is exactly why gay activist are using the case.  The point is to use the fabricated legal conundrum as a way to bring judges back into the debate in Texas, given that voters in that state have already had their say and rejected gay marriage.  read more »

In yet another instance of the consequences of redefining the family, the Catholic Archdiocese in Washinton, DC has been forced to discontinue its foster program, as it would be at legal risk for not placing children with homosexual "married" couples.

According to the new DC gay marriage law (which goes into effect on March 2nd), outside organizations that contract to provide services have to recognize gay marriages in Washington.  In other words, the religious rights of Christian groups that don't recognize homosexual "marriage" as being legitimate are being violated due to their faith. 

And of course this is in addition to the impact on the children that are helped by Christian (as opposed to state run) foster care programs, such as this one which has been around for over 80 years.

Come to think of it, this is probably not an "unintended" consequence.

Over the course of the debate over gay "marriage", supporters have made contended that homosexuals provide stable family environments, at least as much as heterosexuals.  You hear a lot of this in debates over adoption policies as well. Well now a new study is about to be released (out of San Francisco of all places), that should cast some much deserved doubt on that notion.

The study, done by San Francisco State University, was recently previewed in the New York Times (no doubt as potential damage control) and it finds that about half of all male gay couples admit that they regularly engage in sexual activity outside of their "committed" relationship...with the approval of their partner.  Again, half admitted to such behavior, which leaves you to wonder about the other half.

Of course, in the process of doing its damage control duty, the Times did its best to put a positive spin on the study, suggesting that this kind of "transparency can make relationships stronger".

So it's come to this?  Suggesting that "open" marriages can be more stable, therefore gay marriage is no problem?  The one and only reason to even make such a suggestion is because they are worried that this revelation will hurt the chances of approving gay marriage in other states.  read more »

Supporters of gay marriage in California have now taken their case against that state's marriage amendment to federal court.  At issue is California's Proposition 8, in which voters in 2008 voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Given that this is now a federal case, it will start out in district court, then - no matter who wins or loses - will be appealed to the (liberal) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the US Supreme Court.

In the end, it's not just California's Prop 8 that's at issue, but it will be the definition of marriage in all fifty states.  In other words, what the pro-gay marriage crowd is looking for is the gay marriage equivalent of Roe vs. Wade, where the Supreme Court steps in and sweeps aside citizen passed laws all across the country and short circuits the political process all together.

From the Baptist Press:  read more »

Given all the attention paid to the election results in Virginia and New Jersey, it was easy to miss if you weren't paying attention, but voters in Maine comfortably passed a referendum overturning their state legislature's recent enactment of a gay marriage law in that state.

After the law legalizing gay marriage was passed and signed by their governor this past summer, conservatives got organized and initiated a petition to get what amounts to a "citizen's veto" put on the ballot, which allows the public to overrule laws passed by the legislature.  (Imagine have that option on things passed in DC!)

After being outspent almost two to one, to say nothing of having to fight against the mainstream media as well, traditional marriage supporters came out on top and passed the referendum by approximately 53% to 47%.

This was special for a few reasons.

First, it was the first time that voters have been able to overturn gay marriage in a state where it was put in place by a state legislature, (as opposed to the usual suspects of liberal judges).

Second, it continues the unbroken string of thirty-one victories in a row where traditional marriage has been on the ballot.  In fact, voters in no state whatsoever have ever approved gay marriage when they were given the option.

Which should give a little pause to the liberal Democrats in Washington with designs on overturning the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

***  read more »

In a stunning rebuke by the citizens of Maine yesterday, the law passed by the Democratic-controlled Maine state legislature and signed into law by Democratic Governor, John Baldacci, to allow homosexuals to marry, was resoundingly defeated.  The American people continue to overrule their elected officials on this issue, time after time, and it seems these politicians never seem to learn the lesson.  

By an average of about 70%, voters in 31 states, including the liberal states of California, Hawaii, Oregon, and now Maine, have rejected homosexual marriage.  In the case of Maine, the Democratic-elected officials were determined to bypass their citizens and force such "marriages" upon the citizens of Maine.  The citizens rose up and voted a resounding NO!    read more »

Like many newspapers, The Contra Costa Times has a history of attacking Christians and slanting the news to fit the liberal socialist agenda. On September 1st, their page 2 "People" section went after the real Miss USA, Carrie Prejean, stating that she filed a lawsuit in order to bring more attention to herself. This pastor promptly wrote a response with request to publish. After ignoring the request for two weeks they received a second notice, a bit more forceful, advising that by deliberately printing misinformation about Ms. Prejean, they were obligated to publish my response to correct their mis-statements.

Two days later, Thursday September 17th, my edited response was published thusly:

Unfair to Prejean  read more »

The "Washington Times" reported last week that the governor of Maine, John Baldacci, has signed a formal proclamation putting the state's homosexual "marriage" law up for a vote this November.  Since it is an off-congressional election year, there is a good chance that those committed to traditional marriage between one man and one woman will prevail as traditional values voters have in 30 other states so far.  

The state constitutional amendments banning homosexual "marriage" in those 30 states have passed overwhelmingly by an average margin of 70% approval, including the liberal states of Hawaii, Oregon and California.  The Maine legislature has passed a law approving homosexual "marriage."  However, the procedure called the People's Veto enables the citizens of Maine to override their state legislators.      read more »

Word came out yesterday that the Obama Administration has filed court papers declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) discriminates against homosexuals.

As reported by Concerned Women for America, a Department of Justice official, Tracy Schmaier, called the DOMA "discriminatory" because it "prevents equal rights and benefits."

Of course. How dare they say that marriage is only between a man and a woman? If a man and a woman can do something, then by golly two men or two women have the right to call their confumacious coupling the same thing, have it recognized as marriage and be awarded the exact same benefits of all married couples.

Nope, you can't exclude anybody from anything. If a boy wants to play Alice in Wonderland, he should have that right. Boys have the right to be a prom queen if they so desire or anything else that anybody else does. And people should be able to use any bathroom that they like. That is the only way to have a just society.  read more »