Posted on Fri, 09/02/2005 - 00:34 — by asoglin
The California State Senate has approved a bill that would allow gay marriage. No other legislative body has taken this position without a push from the courts.
The bill still has to go to the Assembly, and the governor could veto it.
Here's the story.
What are your thoughts?
UPDATE (9/7/05): The California Assembly voted Sept. 6 to approve the gay marriage bill, sending it to the gov. Here's a story on the assembly vote.
Ari Soglin
Editor for online news and citizen media
Contra Costa Times
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Pastors take lead in opposition against push for same-sex marriage - New ‘God’s Design for Marriage’ project seeks state constitutional amendment
by Lori Arnold
LOS ANGELES, Calif. — A new coalition of pastors who have committed energies and resources into supporting a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage are hoping the concept across California.
“God’s Design for Marriage†was launched Oct. 16 in San Diego to encourage pastors to get involved in efforts to block the legalization of same-sex marriage in California.
Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa, and Miles McPherson, pastor of the Rock Church in San Diego, brought their message to Los Angeles Oct. 17 during the California Restoration Project’s pastors’ policy briefing. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the guest speaker.
Organizers gave Garlow a few minutes to share about a burgeoning movement in San Diego.
“They seemed responsive,†Garlow said a few days after the meeting. “The response was extremely strong. I think there is high motivation to take action, a high motivation to do something.â€
Lynne Ruttkay, who leads a Salt and Light Ministry at Maranatha Church in Rancho Bernardo, said she’s involved in a project with Calvary Church affiliates statewide to notify pastors of a pending signature drive to place the matter on the November 2008 ballot.
Salt and Light ministries are a relatively new movement that educates Christians about vital family-centered issues such as religious freedom, homosexuality and abortion. Ruttkay said Calvary was already in the process of forming a statewide Salt and Light leadership team to develop local ministries when the issue of same-sex marriage recently escalated.
The salt and light leader said up to 360 Calvary congregations may be asked to get their people involved in the effort to save marriage. The project, still in the organizing stages, is being conducted through Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. Of the 500 pastors in attendance at the Los Angeles briefing, Garlow said about 300 were from Calvary congregations.
“I do believe there is a growing awareness among the pastors that this is a bona fide survival issue,†the San Diego pastor said. “I think it’s beginning to sink in, but it’s not quite to critical mass, yet.â€
Garlow said Christian leaders in California were given “a real jolt and a wake-up call†Oct. 12 when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stunned conservatives by signing into law several bills—similar to those he vetoed last year—that expand homosexual teaching in public schools.
Silencing schools
In signing the California Student Civil Rights Act, known as SB 777, the governor has made it illegal for any public school to use curricula, other resource materials and activities that portrays gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered in a negative light.
Ron Prentice, president of the California Family Council, in a meeting of 175 San Diego pastors held the day before the Los Angeles briefing, warned that SB 777 is intended to silence teachers, administrators, staff and students from sharing their faith and beliefs regarding alternative lifestyles.
“You need to know that for many, many years the homosexual lobby has been pursuing this agenda. … The reality is there is a very clear agenda, and they almost accomplished all of it,†Prentice said.
One of the few remaining holdouts, he said, is traditional marriage, although domestic partnership laws granted by the state of California have already bestowed most traditional marriage rights to same-sex couples.
“Everything is moving toward an annihilation of the traditional, biblical and historic definition of marriage between one man and one woman,†he said.
Prentice told the spiritual leaders that he believes the ultimate goal of the pursuit of same-sex marriage is not for the right to marry, but to normalize homosexuality. In Sweden, he added, where same-sex marriage is legal, less than 3 percent of same-sex couples actually wed.
“Heterosexual marriage is built on commitment and covenant before the Lord, and homosexual relationships are something very, very different,†Prentice said.
Mayoral fallout
San Diego pastors were also emboldened after San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders broke a campaign pledge to protect traditional marriage by signing a “friend-of-the-court†brief supporting same-sex marriage. The amicus brief was sent to the state Supreme Court on behalf of the city of San Diego.
The state’s high court is about to review a challenge to Proposition 22, the 2000 initiative approved by nearly 62 percent of voters that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. A ruling is expected next year and many court observers anticipate the court will likely overturn the proposition, paving the way for legislators and the governor to legalize gay marriage.
Many in San Diego Christian circles are not willing to stand by and wait. Instead, they have initiated “God’s Design for Marriage,†a pro-marriage strategy to jump-start the Protect Marriage petition drive to create a state constitutional amendment that would permanently protect traditional marriage and place it outside the jurisdiction of both the legislature and the courts.
Those petitions are expected to be ready for circulation the first week in December. A second proposed amendment by a different pro-family group was dismissed as unlikely to succeed at the polls.
From the pulpit
The four-point strategy includes having area pastors, in advance of the petition’s release, dedicate at least 10 minutes of their sermon time on Thanksgiving weekend to the affirmation of marriage and discussing the petition drive.
At least 700,000 signatures from registered voters are required to get the amendment on the ballot. To account for inevitable errors in the petition process, supporters need up to 1.2 million signatures total.
In another strategic move, pastors are being urged to allow petition drives at their churches and to encourage members to take petitions out into the community. The group would have until the first of April to get the signatures in order to qualify for the November 2008 ballot.
“When the shepherd says it, the people go,†Penny Harrington, state legislative director for Concerned Women for America, told the gathering.
Prentice one of the main supporters of the Protect Marriage amendment, told the pastors the broad-based coalition is hoping volunteers can gather at least 500,000 signatures, with the rest coming from paid workers. Without volunteers, the cost to gather signatures could be as high as $2.5 million. Once qualified, supporters would need additional money for a publicity campaign to counter the opposition. According to research supplied by California Family Council, gay rights groups across the country have been spending $3 to $5 to counter every $1 spent on traditional marriage causes.
The pastors plan to keep the measure in front of the public by coordinating an affirmation of marriage vows in conjunction with Valentine’s Day. Details for that phase are still being determined.
The final strategy, once the amendment makes the ballot, is to promote the November election and host voter registration drives.
Garlow, emphasizing he did not want to appear as an alarmist or melodramatic, said he was sensing many pastors have come to the point where they are willing to lay it all on the line.
“I will not compromise my dignity, my integrity, my honor and my stand for Christ,†he said. “Whatever it costs, it costs. So be it.â€
ACTION POINT:
Marriage: God's Design (Resources)
These resources are for pastors and Christian leaders desiring to make a clear statement regarding biblical marriage in November weekend services. Download the pdf’s for the items you may need.
• Logo.pdf
• Affirming Biblical marriage Flyers.pdf
• Pro Marriage Thanksgiving Theme poster for Pastors. CE November Ad.pdf
• Church/Pastors guidelines.pdf
• Learn more about this issue at protectmarriage.com
The Protect Marriage amendment reads:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.â€
The Protect Marriage coalition includes the California Family Council, the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Capitol Resource Institute, Pacific Justice Institute, Eagle Forum of California and, for legal counsel, The Alliance Defense Fund.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Liberty Counsel Files Brief At California Supreme Court in Landmark Marriage Cases
San Francisco, CA – Yesterday, Liberty Counsel filed a brief at the California Supreme Court in a nationally significant case that will ultimately either protect or destroy the definition of marriage, which has always been the union between one man and one woman. Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that the fundamental constitutional right to marry includes rights and obligations that cannot be eliminated because they come from the inherent nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, rather than from a state-sanctioned union of any two people who love each other.
Fifteen amicus briefs have been submitted in support of Liberty Counsel’s position in Thomasson v. Newsom. Liberty Counsel represents Campaign for California Families. One amicus brief filed in support of Liberty Counsel’s arguments was submitted by the African American Pastors of California, which states: “The analogy to racial discrimination is not only false, it is destructive.â€
Speaking on behalf of those who have experienced real discrimination, the African American Pastors’ brief states that “Marriage is not a ‘socially constructed’ relationship rooted only in the law or in the social or religious conventions of the society in which it is recognized. Nor is it simply a ‘committed relationship’ with a person of one’s choice. The union of a man and a woman in marriage is, and always has been, the fundamental building block upon which families, communities and entire societies are built.â€
On the other hand, an amicus brief asking the California Supreme Court to strike down the marriage law declared that “a high court’s message can have a proselytizing and sobering effect, converting an impetuous popular mind into one more receptive to reason.†This brief urges the Court to become an activist engine for social change by undermining the will of the people. Liberty Counsel’s brief responded to a total of forty-five amicus briefs, including the one just quoted.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Virtually every court that has considered challenges to traditional marriage has correctly concluded that the matter of marriage should be decided by the people, not by the courts. Courts are not proselytizing engines of radical social change. Marriage between one man and one woman is an historically shared value that transcends time. Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture, and hurt children.â€
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
** The most important language contained in the proposed initiative is: "A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
VOTEYESMARRIAGE.COM CAMPAIGN UPDATE
Aiming for California's November 2008 ballot VoteYesMarriage.com constitutional marriage amendment is the ONLY way to save marriage in California. Do your part today to save America from California...because time is running out!
IN THIS TIMELY UPDATE:
• Where we stand
• The 14 deficient words of Proposition 22
• You can't protect marriage by just protecting the word "marriage"
• Comparing a strong marriage amendment to a very weak one
• Your response
"Individuals in loving same-sex relationships have waited years, sometimes several decades, for a chance to wed, yearning to obtain the public validation that only marriage can give."
-- California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage are adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."
-- San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer
"We perceive no reason why both parents of a child cannot be women."
-- California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, writing for the court majority
"The person or persons who will save marriage in California are financially blessed, very concerned that everything about marriage be protected for a man and a woman, and eager to generously donate to save this sacred institution for future generations."
-- The VoteYesMarriage.com Campaign
Dear Friend of Marriage:
There is rising anticipation that the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the "marriage cases" this January when the court convenes at its home base of San Francisco.
If so, the high court's decision to license same-sex "marriages" and impose them on every community statewide could come as soon as April 2008. We're making this prediction because a majority of the seven justices already support the notion of "gay and lesbian marriages," and have shown no reluctance to redefine the natural family. (See the above quotes from Justices Kennard and Moreno.)
Obviously, Californians must override the judges…and the politicians. For the sake of future generations, we must protect everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- for one man and one woman in the California State Constitution. But only one California Marriage Amendment will accomplish this: the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment.
Where we stand
Here is where the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign stands right now:
• With the California Supreme Court expected to destroy the civil definition of marriage in the first half of 2008, the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign is persevering and is now aiming for the November 2008 ballot to override the judges and politicians all at once.
How it works: Filing an initiative means that 50 days later a title and summary is issued. Under state law, you now have 150 days to collect over a million or more signatures. The earlier in the year that paid signatures can be collected, the higher up on the ballot a proposition is listed. It's a race with a deadline; therefore it's prudent to raise your funds ahead of time. Initiative campaigns need to meet or exceed their signature goal to succeed. Most initiatives fall short due to not enough funds for professional signature gathering.
• On October 1, the VoteYesMarriage.com campaign filed our rock-solid language with the California Attorney General.
• On November 1, VoteYesMarriage.com refiled our VoteYesMarriage.com amendment with the Attorney General.
• In September, a poll of 800 California "likely voters" found that, if same-sex "marriages" are licensed in California, more voters would support the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment than oppose it. This is very encouraging, because support for natural marriage will only rise when the California Supreme Court destroys marriage in the first half of 2008. Shocked voters will ask "how did this happen?" and "what can be done?" With the voters awakened and energized, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment can pass with majority support.
It's wonderful that VoteYesMarriage.com has a fighting chance to finally protect ALL of marriage for one man and one woman. Our opportunity to authentically protect marriage for future generations has arrived. Our chance will come, of course, when the California Supreme Court drops its "bomb" in early 2008, and the voters respond. Thankfully, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, the only California marriage amendment that will truly protect marriage, can pass. And it must pass...for the sake of future generations.
The 14 deficient words of Proposition 22How can we fully and permanently protect marriage in California? It's a question on the minds of many pro-family citizens.
We already know that we must override the judges and the politicians by writing, qualifying, and passing a state constitutional marriage amendment. But that's only part of the answer. The legal effect of an initiative -- HOW it's written, and WHAT IT WILL DO once the court challenges have concluded -- is what ultimately matters.
The lessons of the last several years provide the answer of how to write what will be the first, and likely the last, California constitutional marriage amendment.
You must remember history.
You must debate facts.
You must test claims of truth.
Then it will be easy to understand what kind of amendment will truly protect marriage for one man and one woman.
We already know some key facts:
1. In 2000, Californians voted to protect marriage for a man and a woman. Proposition 22, a statutory initiative but not a constitutional amendment, read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
2. From 2001 through 2004, the Democrat-controlled California Legislature systematically awarded all the rights of marriage to homosexual partners, creating "same-sex marriage by another name." This is why today in California homosexual couples have ALL the rights of marriage, and have left marriage between a man and a woman a mere word with no exclusive legal value.
3. In 2005, the California courts ruled that the 14-word text of Proposition 22 only protected the word "marriage" but NOT the rights of marriage. The court said the too-brief text of Prop. 22 did not specifically protect marriage rights, which therefore allowed the State Legislature to pass AB 205, which created Section 297.5 of the Family Code, which awarded virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual partners:
"Because the plain, unambiguous language of Proposition 22 is concerned only with who is entitled to obtain the status of marriage, and not with the rights and obligations associated with marriage, section 297.5 (which does not grant the legal status of marriage to registered domestic partners) does not add to, or take away from, Proposition 22."
-- Knight v. Superior Court, 128 Cal. App.4th 14, 26 (2005)
That same year, a California judge rationalized that same-sex "marriages" must be legalized, because the Legislature and the Governor had already awarded all the rights and benefits of marriage to homosexuals:
"Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before…The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."
-- San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer (2005)
4. Therefore, because it explicitly states in its text that the rights, incidents, and benefits of marriage are only for a married husband and wife, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment is the ONLY way to fully and permanently protect marriage for one man and one woman in California . Unlike other proposals, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment securely protects marriage from all attacks -- past, present, and future.
Backed by pro-family constitutional attorneys, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment has the clear, legal language that will satisfy the courts that the people have voted to protect marriage rights for one man and one woman, once and for all. It's full and permanent marriage protection.
You can't protect marriage by just protecting the word "marriage"
Unfortunately, some well-intentioned folks mistakenly believe that placing the 14 deficient words of Proposition 22 into the California Constitution will somehow protect marriage. But that's denying the facts about the past, present, and future.
• Fact about the past: Proposition 22 placed these 14 words into the California Family Code: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Yet this too-short sentence left marriage an empty shell. As the courts have pointed out, Prop. 22 didn't protect marriage rights, marriage benefits, or the moral consciences of businesses, nonprofits and churches. After Proposition 22 passed in 2000, the California Legislature systematically passed a raft of bills that created pseudo-marriages by awarding every marriage right to homosexual couples. The Legislature has forced state contractors and insurance carriers to subsidize homosexual "marriage" benefits. Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court has forced businesses that are open to the public to undermine marriage. Those 14 words of Prop. 22 DID NOT and WILL NOT protect marriage in California, even if they're in the State Constitution.
• Fact about the present: We need no other example for the need to protect everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- than this year's SB 11. This marriage-destroying bill by San Francisco state senator Carol Migden proposed to award all the rights and benefits of marriage to a man and a woman who are shacking up yet still refuse to get married. Giving everything that belongs to marriage to unmarried individuals would make marriage unpopular and antiquated in the eyes of future generations. SB 11 would functionally abolish marriage. This bill passed the California State Senate this year before stalling in late August, but it will certainly return, as soon as next year. Do you see why we must protect marriage rights and marriage benefits in order to fully and permanently protect marriage?
• Fact about the future: Not only would placing the 14 words of Prop. 22 into the Constitution continue to leave marriage an empty shell devoid of any exclusive legal value, protecting only the word "marriage" will allow the government to someday create a gender-neutral definition of male and female, create polygamous marriages, or completely abolish marriage as a civil institution. Consider that if the government can redefine "parent" and "marriage," there's no stopping them without the clear, specific words of the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment in the California Constitution -- plain, straight-forward language that will protect EVERYTHING about marriage and permit ZERO wiggle-room for judges. This is why spending time and money to protect only the word "marriage," or placing the 14 deficient words of Prop. 22 into the California Constitution, is a complete waste of resources.
Comparing a strong marriage amendment to a very weak one
In the last few years, there have been two dominant ideas about how to protect marriage in California. One proposal is to protect only the word "marriage" by placing the 14 words of Proposition 22 into the California State Constitution. Those words, which sound good but don't do much, are "Only marriage between a man and woman are valid or recognized in California." Yet this phrase will not protect marriage because it's full of holes as has already been shown.
In contrast, the rock-solid VoteYesMarriage.com amendment would protect EVERYTHING about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and all legal aspects of marriage -- for only one man and one woman. VoteYesMarriage.com protects marriage past, present, and future.
Here are the clear, precise, and important words that VoteYesMarriage.com would place into the California State Constitution:
Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome.
Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.
A brief comparison of two ideas to protect marriage in California
Protect only the word "marriage"
Yes
No*
Yes
No
from being forced to undermine marriage
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
* Even if the word "marriage" were placed into the California State Constitution, that would not prohibit the California Legislature from statutorily redefining "man" and "woman" as anything-goes "gender." It wouldn't stop politicians from allowing polygamous marriages because "a man" and "a woman" do not define a clear one man/one woman numerical cap. And it certainly wouldn't prevent the California Legislature from eventually abolishing marriage as a civil institution, as is being proposed in New York State. Consider California's gender-bending definition already in the state's Penal, Civil, Government, and Education codes: "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. Is this the future definition of bride and groom?
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Where There's a Bill, There's a Way (FRC)
Proving once again that homosexuals won't be satisfied until they obliterate traditional marriage, two liberal New Jersey groups have launched television commercials demanding that their leaders upgrade the new civil union law to same-sex marriage.
In conjunction with the campaign, members of both the New Jersey Assembly and Senate have introduced bills A3685 and S2898 to legalize gay "marriage" and force the state back into a bitter debate that many believed was solved by the legislature earlier this year.
Although the current session is a short lame duck session, there is a good possibility that the Assembly's Judiciary Committees could bring up a bill as soon as December 6. Our friends at the New Jersey Family Policy Council are doing all they can to raise an army of opposition to block the bills, but they need your help.
For more information on how you can involved, log on to www.njfpc.org.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
FRC:
New Jersey voters are celebrating a monumental victory in the state's marriage debate. Despite the legislature's brazen move to introduce a same-sex "marriage" bill before the session expires, the New Jersey Family Policy Council--together with other state and national groups like FRC--launched an all-out communications blitz, clogging phone lines and e-mail servers of state lawmakers all last week.
One report suggested that the Assembly offices were receiving about 200 calls an hour from people voicing their outrage at the bill. The campaign, coupled with a massive radio ad buy across New Jersey, hit Senate President Richard Codey the hardest. "[They're] jamming our phone lines, and we can't do our work here." Fortunately, that work will no longer include a same-sex "marriage" debate.
Codey was persuaded to ignore the bill. "It's not going to be posted," he said. The next time you consider sitting out one of these battles, remember these triumphs--and the good that comes of voicing your values.Opponents of gay marriage launch all-out N.J. campaign
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 481
Report Ohso
Raising Arizona... to Protect Marriage (FRC)
Pro-family advocates in Arizona are hoping that the second time's a charm when it comes to banning same-sex "marriage." Just two years after the marriage protection amendment was narrowly defeated in the Grand Canyon State, GOP lawmakers in the state House and Senate introduced new bills yesterday, HCR 2065 and SCR 1038, which would give opponents of the 2006 measure an opportunity to reconsider their views.
Unlike the last proposal, this amendment plainly states, "Only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state." After Arizona became the first state to reject a ban on same-sex "marriage," a distinction that local social conservatives would like to forget, leaders learned from the experience and simplified the proposal's language.
Two years ago, gay activists used the broad wording to convince residents that a marriage amendment would jeopardize the domestic partnerships of heterosexual couples. That tactic is unlikely to work for liberals this time around since the measure now mimics what already exists in state law. If values voters prevail, Arizonans can rest assured that as a part of the state constitution, traditional marriage can withstand even the fiercest legal attacks.
Additional Resources AZ Policy Council: Support Marriage at the State Capitol!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 481
Report Ohso
Honeymoon Over for New Jersey's Gay 'Marriage' Compromise (FRC)
Today's first anniversary of New Jersey's civil union law has not been met with the type of celebration one would expect from the radical Left. Instead, the milestone is becoming a rallying cry for homosexuals who believe that the law falls short of same-sex "marriage."
That argument is getting new traction after New Jersey's Civil Union Review Commission released a report on the impact of the law. The 21-page document claims that the 2,329 gay couples who applied for civil unions are still relegated to a "second-class status" in the eyes of employers and the government. The Commission, which is stacked with pro-gay liberals, stops short of recommending that Jersey legalize same-sex "marriage"--but that is exactly what liberals are calling for in response. Gov. Jon Corzine (D) has already said that he would sign such a bill into law. "[The] bottom line is... about equal rights," said the Governor's spokesman.
This is what I've been saying all along; the homosexual community is not interested in the "benefits" of marriage that most civil unions provide they want to force Americans to equate their sexual behavior with marriage.
Don't be fooled! Civil unions are not a compromise, they are a stepping stone to the ultimate prize--marriage. For more information on how to stop this from happening, visit our friends at the New Jersey Family Policy Council at www.njfpc.org.
Additional Resources New Jersey Family Policy Council
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Rhode Warriors Win Big on Marriage (FRC)
Conservatives in the Ocean State continue to celebrate Friday's Supreme Court victory, which was a significant step forward for marriage in a legal system rife with judicial activism. By a 3-2 ruling, the justices refused to grant a "divorce" to a lesbian couple who were married in Massachusetts and now reside in Rhode Island.
Since the state doesn't recognize same-sex "marriage," it stands to reason that it wouldn't legally acknowledge the dissolution of such unions.
In a rare display of judicial restraint, the court said that such matters were for the legislature to decide. Its role is "not to determine policy, but... legislative intent."
Meanwhile, it seems the "need" for the dissolution of same-sex unions may be negligible, considering the lack of enthusiasm among homosexuals for these benefit-bearing unions in the first place. Since the 2000 census (the first to allow Americans to identify themselves as a same-sex partner), only 24% of gay couples in Connecticut have bothered to enter civil unions. The statistics are merely reflecting what FRC has said all along.
In the end, this battle isn't for "equal benefits." If it were, homosexuals would be lin
ing up in New England courthouses to apply for them.
The battle is for the very definition of marriage. We're grateful that the Rhode Island Supreme Court did its part to leave that fight where it belongs--in the hands of the people.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Florida Marriage Protection Amendment Certified for 2008 Ballot - www.LC.org
In November, Florida voters will have the opportunity to vote on an amendment to guarantee that marriage in that state remains the union of one man and one woman.
The Florida Marriage Protection Amendment has now received more than the required 611,009 certified signatures needed to be placed on the November 2008 ballot. The number of signatures is more than any gathered thus far for marriage amendments in other states.
The marriage amendment states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." The language of the amendment was drafted by Mat and Anita Staver and is designed to protect marriage as one man and one woman.
In January 2006, Mat Staver presented oral argument in defense of the language, and on March 23, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court in a 7-0 opinion rejected the ACLU’s challenge to the marriage amendment.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Rays of Hope in Sunshine State (FRC)
Paving the way for a crucial vote on marriage next November, Florida4Marriage announced and the Division of Elections today confirmed that the state's petition drive not only reached but surpassed the 611,009 signatures needed to put a marriage amendment on the 2008 ballot.
Thanks to our friend John Stemberger, who rallied his state to participate, Florida voters will have an opportunity to become the 28th state to define marriage constitutionally as the union of one man and one woman.
But the battle is far from over. According to people on the ground, the opposition in Florida is already mobilizing. As in Arizona, liberals are falsely claiming that the amendment would take away senior citizen benefits.
Stemberger says the misinformation campaign won't work in Florida. "This time," he told reporters, "we're ready for them."
For more information on how to get involved, log on to www.Florida4Marriage.org.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
CRI:
The same-sex marriage case pending in the California Supreme Court once again made headlines this week.
The Associated Press reports: "Gay marriage case gets most 'friend-of-court' briefs in memory." Chief Justice Ronald George has indicated this is the reason why the court is taking so long to decide the issue.
"Friend-of-Court" briefs are also known as amicus briefs. They are submitted by individuals and organizations not a party to a case. These briefs serve to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding the matter.
George stated that since December 2006 the court has received 45 briefs from 145 various organizations.
In 2000, Californians passed Prop 22 to protect against homosexual marriage. This should have been the end of the story because the California constitution prohibits the legislature from overturning a ballot initiative passed by the people. The legislature, however, has flagrantly defied Prop 22 and twice passed homosexual marriage legislation. Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed both attempts by the legislature to legalize homosexual marriage.
The case currently pending before the California Supreme Court is a direct legal challenge to Prop 22.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
SPECIAL UPDATE: LAWMAKERS ASK AG FOR OPINION ON MOSCOW POLICY (IVA)
As the following story from the Moscow-Pullman Daily News indicates, six Idaho legislators have asked the state's attorney general to issue a legal opinion regarding the constitutionality of Moscow's decision last Monday to
grant spousal benefits to domestic partners, including same-sex couples.
It's worth remembering that the debate here is not over gay rights and the definition of marriage - that debate took place in 2006. The marriage amendment was thoroughly debated in both the Idaho House and Senate, and received more than a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The issue was then a matter of public debate for almost nine months, and was resolved at the ballot box in November when 63% of voters elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to the Idaho constitution and prohibited recognition of marriage counterfeits.
No, this debate is simpler than that: it's about whether an Idaho municipality can flagrantly disregard the constitution and the express will of the people and get away with it.
The IVA hand-delivered a letter to the Attorney General's office on Friday in support of the lawmakers' request, which you can read in full at the link below. Here is the key paragraph:
"On behalf of the 283,286 Idahoans who elevated protection for marriage to the state constitution in 2006, the Idaho Values Alliance stands in support of a request from legislators who ask the office of the Attorney General to conduct a formal investigation into the actions of the Moscow city council, to determine whether its policy of granting benefits to domestic partnerships is unlawful and violates the Idaho state constitution."
Here is the story on the controversy from Saturday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:
Domestic-partner decision draws fire
Six state senators seek legal analysis from attorney general's office
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer
Saturday, December 22, 2007 - Page Updated at 12:00:00 AM
Six Idaho state senators (Note: the request came from three senators and three representatives) have asked the Idaho Attorney General's Office to analyze the Moscow City Council's decision to extend insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners.
Sen. Russ Fulcher, R-Meridian (pictured right), submitted the request Friday afternoon on behalf of Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Boise, Michael Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake, Curtis Bowers, R-Caldwell, Phil Hart, R-Athol, and Steven Thayne, R-Emmett.
"We were surprised to see the decision regarding the health insurance policy," Fulcher said. "It appears it would conflict with the marriage amendment, or at least the spirit of it."
Idaho's marriage amendment, passed in 2006, states, "A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state."
The City Council passed a resolution Monday extending health insurance benefits from Regence Blue Shield of Idaho to employees' same- and opposite-sex domestic partners and their partners' dependents. Regence began offering the plan in November.
Domestic partners who want to sign up for the plan must file an affidavit with Regence certifying their partnership and meet a list of qualifying criteria, such as shared residence and financial responsibility.
Fulcher said there is an "intuitive conflict" between the benefit plan and the marriage amendment, which led to the legislators' decision to ask the attorney general's office for an analysis.
He said it is too early to speculate what the legislators will do when they get information back.
Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney said she does not believe the decision conflicts with the Idaho Constitution.
"This is a matter of extending to employees an insurance plan that is offered by our insurance provider," Chaney said. "The city is neither defining domestic partnerships nor creating them."
City Attorney Randy Fife said Regence originated the benefit plan, determines what is offered and decides who is eligible, so the plan does not require the city to "recognize" domestic partnerships in the sense of the marriage amendment.
Fife said the city did not change anything in its personnel policy to define or establish domestic partnerships. The city's definition of "immediate family" does not include domestic partners.
"To me, it is not related to whether or not there is a domestic partnership or a relationship that's prohibited by law," Fife said. "It has to do with whether or not the city has the capability of allowing an insurance benefit to be offered to its employees."
Fife said he would review any opinion from the attorney general's office and pass it on to the mayor and City Council to decide how to respond.
Attorney general's office spokeswoman Kriss Bivens Cloyd said the office can respond to legislators' requests with a legal analysis, but it is only an opinion. The legislators can tell the city of Moscow what the opinion is, but the city "can take that into consideration, or they can choose to ignore it."
Bivens Cloyd said an analysis requires much research, so it will be some time before any opinion is offered.
Idaho Values Alliance Executive Director Bryan Fischer on Friday sent a letter to Attorney General Lawrence Wasden in support of the legislators' request for analysis.
IVA began questioning the constitutionality of extending benefits to domestic partners before the City Council made its decision. IVA is the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian nonprofit group.
"I think the city of Moscow must be stopped in its tracks," Fischer said. "If the city is allowed to get away with this, then the constitution of the state of Idaho is a meaningless document."
Fischer said Moscow leaders' arguments that offering the benefit plan doesn't conflict with the constitution are "gobbledygook."
"The city is offering benefits to people in domestic partnerships. That is flatly contrary to the Idaho state constitution," he said.
Chaney acknowledged the subject of domestic partnerships is very emotional for some people. She said the city is not attempting to redefine family, but to recognize that nontraditional families are common.
"The people who would benefit are existing employees, conceivably," she said. "They're people's friends, neighbors, relatives. I think there's this perception that the prospective beneficiaries are kind of scary or evil people, and in fact they're somebody's child."
Tara Roberts can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext. 234, or by e-mail at troberts@dnews.com.
Moscow-Pullman Daily News: Domestic partner decision draws fire (Subscription)
Idaho Values Alliance: Letter to AG's office re: Moscow city council
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Tens of thousands rally in Spain in defense of traditional family
The Associated Press The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com 12/30/07
MADRID, Spain: Tens of thousands of people in predominantly Roman Catholic Spain rallied Sunday in defense of the traditional family in a country where the government has legalized gay marriage and facilitated divorce.
The crowd roared when Pope Benedict XVI appeared on giant TV screens in a live hookup from St. Peter's Square in Vatican City, praising the crowd.
The pope, speaking during the traditional noon Sunday Angelus prayer, said the family is "based on the unbreakable union of man and woman and represents the privileged environment where human life is welcomed and protected from the beginning to its natural end."
"It is worthwhile to work for the family and marriage because it is worthwhile to work for the human being, the most precious being created by God," the pope said, speaking in Spanish. He urged parents to bring up their children with respect for the moral values that give dignity to human life.
It was Benedict's latest appeal for the traditional family, a central theme of his papacy. The Vatican has campaigned against proposals to legalize gay marriage, and denounced Prime Minister Jose Luis rodriguez Zapatero's government for passing a law recognizing gay marriage.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
The Great Divorce? FRC:
In New Hampshire, same-sex couples had a unique way of ringing in the New Year. Nearly 40 held civil union ceremonies at the State House, making a sobering statement about the arrival New Hampshire's civil union law, which went into effect January 1. Despite the great lengths liberals took to pass the law, only 100 couples have reportedly taken advantage of the special status. The Associated Press reports a prediction that 3,500 to 4,000 civil unions will be performed this year--which is laughable, given that the 2000 census reported only 2,703 same-sex partner couples in the state. Same-sex couples in neighboring Vermont and Massachusetts have been mostly uninterested in seeking the legal recognition for which they fought politically and legally, with only about forty percent formalizing their relationships.
Ironically, the newest front in the war to win same-sex "marriage" is a battle to obtain same-sex divorce. In today's Washington Post, one of the feature stories decried the recent court ruling which refused to grant a divorce to two Rhode Island lesbians who were married in Massachusetts.
The article goes on at great length about the various legal problems faced by same-sex couples who can't get a divorce--without ever mentioning that they are exactly the same problems faced by cohabiting heterosexual couples who break up.
Yet many of the strongest advocates of same-sex "marriage" refuse to say a word against opposite-sex cohabitation. The story ends with a law professor's plea that even states that oppose same-sex marriage should allow same-sex divorce. But recognition of such relationships to dissolve them is merely a Trojan horse for recognition to create them.
![]()
![]()
Same-Sex Divorce Challenges the Legal System [Washington Post]
![]()
Additional Resources
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
IVA:
Our newest cultural hero is a registrar in England who is refusing to perform gay weddings because they violate her conscience and deeply held religious convictions. She is taking her local council to court over the matter.
We'll see if the secular left, which routinely insists that simply being "offended" is grounds for all kinds of lawsuits, will allow evangelical Christians the same privilege. Don't hold your breath.
(Registrar says 'I won't' to gay weddings and sues council over ceremonies which offend her religious beliefs | the Daily Mail)
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
FRC:
DOMA, Sweet DOMA
For months, the House and Senate have been out of touch with Americans, and the introduction of a new domestic partner policy proves it. On December 19, shortly before the chambers recessed, members of both the House and Senate sponsored bills that would essentially invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Under the new legislation government employees and their same-sex partners would be eligible to receive federal health and insurance benefits. The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, introduced in the Senate as S. 2521 by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House as H.R. 4838 by Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Chris Shays (R-Conn.), Harry Waxman (D-Calif.), and Tom Davis (R-Va.), would force taxpayers to subsidize a sexual lifestyle that a majority of them find morally objectionable.
If congressional leaders believe that a new era of acceptance has dawned, they need only to look to their own home states, where efforts to enshrine traditional marriage into law are energizing voters as never before.
In November, four states are gearing up to join the 27 that have already amended their constitutions to protect marriage as God intended it--as the union of one man and one woman. Two others expect a vote as early as next year.
The only ones in denial of America's legislative priorities happen to be the leaders setting them. Help us deliver the reality check that Congress so desperately needs. Click the link below and ask your representatives to vote "no" on H.R. 4838 and S. 2521.
![]()
![]()
Congressional Directory
![]()
Take Action Now
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Florida Marriage Amendment in Danger of Not Making 2008 Ballot
Liberty Counsel - www.LC.org
We need your help now to collect new petitions from Florida voters during the next two weeks.
We have just learned that, due to an unprecedented audit ordered by the Florida Division of Elections, approximately 30,000 Florida Marriage Protection Amendment petitions have been thrown out. Although over 611,000 signatures were gathered, the amendment is now short by 22,000 petitions as a result of the audit.
The amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and would prohibit polygamy, group marriage, and same sex marriages from being recognized in Florida. The fight to bring this amendment to a vote has taken much effort and it is not over yet. In 2006, Mathew Staver successfully defended the amendment language before the Florida Supreme Court against an attack by the ACLU. We believe the ACLU will do whatever it can to stop this petition from getting on the November ballot.
Under a new law, petitions can not be delivered to local county supervisors of elections by individual petition signers. All petitions must be physically mailed or hand delivered to the state headquarters of Florida4Marriage.org, located at 4853 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando FL 32806, before close of business on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 (Presidential Primary Election Day). Florida4Marriage.org is required to turn in the petitions.
The final count must be complete by January 31 and the Division of Elections will certify the final number on February 1. It is imperative that we receive the required number of signatures in order to be placed on the ballot in November 2008. If we fall short, we have to start all over again. We are not alarmists, but Liberty Counsel is sounding the alarm on this matter. Time is off the essence.
Any registered Florida voter can sign a petition.
Take Action Today!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
CRI:
Protect Marriage Initiative-Signatures Needed!
We are currently caught in an historic attempt to radically alter the meaning and definition of marriage. Marriage must remain strong for future generations. Protecting marriage is a battle worth fighting for!
ProtectMarriage.com is a coalition to preserve marriage between one man and one woman in California. The coalition is currently conducting a petition drive to place the "California Marriage Protection Act" on California's November 2008 ballot.
The "California Marriage Protection Act" will write marriage protections into our constitution itself, therefore preventing the legislature or judges from redefining marriage to accommodate homosexual relationships.
Capitol Resource Family Impact (CRFI) strongly encourages you to visit the ProtectMarriage.com website and print off petitions, circulate them, and return the signed petitions.
Pro-family, pro-marriage Californians must take a strong stand or we will lose this battle!
You can help! Visit ProtectMarriage.com today!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 762
Report Ohso1
Division of Elections Certifies Florida Marriage Protection Amendment for 2008 Ballot 2/2/08
Tallahassee, FL – Late last night the Florida Division of Elections announced that the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment is now certified for the November 4, 2008 ballot with a total of 649,346 petitions. Within the last two weeks, 92,000 petitions were collected in order to exceed the 611,009 required before the February 1 deadline.
The amendment defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and would prohibit polygamy, group marriage, and same sex marriage from being recognized in Florida. The fight to bring this amendment to the ballot has been a coordinated effort by many individuals, organizations and churches. John Stemberger, State Chairman of Florida4Marriage.org, the official sponsor of the amendment, is to be commended for his extraordinary work in coordinating the petition drive. No marriage amendment effort in any state has gathered as many signatures.
In December, the Florida Division of Elections web site reported that more than enough petitions had counted and verified by the Supervisors of Elections, but then indicated in January that approximately 30,000 of the petitions were thrown out causing a shortage of approximately 22,000 petitions. With only two weeks remaining, groups and individuals all over the state rallied to collect more signatures to meet the February 1 deadline.
The process to amend the state constitution to protect marriage began in 2005 after a series of lawsuits were filed challenging Florida’s Defense of Marriage Act (which Mat Staver drafted) that was passed in 1997. A coalition of groups joined together and agreed on the language of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment that was drafted by Mat and Anita Staver. In January 2006, Mat Staver presented oral argument in defense of the language, and on March 23, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court in a 7-0 opinion rejected the ACLU’s challenge to the marriage amendment. Following the ruling by the Court, the task became obtaining the required number of signatures.
The marriage amendment states: "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented on the occasion: "When I heard the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment was certified for the ballot, words could not express my exhilaration. I am thankful that so many pastors and community leaders came together in a coordinated effort to accomplish the largest grassroots petition initiative Florida’s history. The fact that so many people poured their hearts into this marriage amendment underscores the broad support to protect traditional marriage.
The wave of citizens will turn into a tsunami of voters who will go to the polls in November to pass the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. This is a victory for the family, for the children and for the future of Florida."