LifeSiteNews on the rediscovery of the importance of marriage in Hungary:
The new Constitution, strongly supported by voters, declares that human life must be protected from conception and says that marriage can only be contracted between a man and a woman. This has infuriated European Union secularists who are issuing threats to try to force a change back to the EU’s standards.
Dear Marriage Supporter,
I'll keep this brief, but we have an urgent need in Maryland today. Please keep reading to see the ways you can help right now.
Last evening the Maryland Senate voted 25-22 in favor of same-sex marriage, sending the bill on to Governor O'Malley who has lobbied vigorously for the measure and will likely sign it into law today.
The good news is that in Maryland, politicians don't have the final say.
NOM is a member of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, the official committee that has already begun the effort to collect signatures to put the bill on the ballot this November. But time is short—we have just three months to collect 56,000 valid signatures needed to qualify the referendum for the statewide ballot. Over the next three months, we will be taking our message to voters from every walk of life—from college campuses to African American churches, from the Eastern Shore to Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in suburban D.C.
Maryland has a reputation as having some of the most stringent signature requirements in the nation, so we will need several times the required 56,000 signatures to ensure we are not disqualified at the last minute due to signatures that are thrown out.
Here is what I need you to do right now:
If you live in Maryland:
Your response today is incredibly important. The response in these first few weeks will help to gauge the funds the campaign will need to devote to signature gathering—and the more signatures gathered by volunteers, the more resources we will have to take our message straight to the general public in the fall.
I know that many of you receiving this email don't live in Maryland. If you live outside of Maryland, here's what I need you to do today:
If you act today, I promise you that we will get the signatures to put this measure on the ballot. This is a fight we didn't ask for...but it may prove to be one of marriage's most significant victories this fall. Please respond right away. We urgently need your help today.
An openly gay Texas judge says she refuses to conduct marriage ceremonies for straight couples until same-sex couples can also wed.
Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker explained her decision Tuesday at a monthly meeting for the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas.
“I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said, according to the Dallas Voice, a newspaper for the gay community.
Parker told the audience that while she refuses to conduct the ceremonies, she explains her reasoning to the couples and passes them along to another judge.
“I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage equality in the state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” she said.
... "it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it,” she added.
Same-sex marriage is not legal in Texas.
Here is some local TV coverage of the comments she made:
You can watch a more complete video of Judge Parker's comments here.
"...In court papers, a group of congressional Republicans defending the federal gay marriage ban revealed they are appealing the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit will become the second federal appeals court to now consider the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 16-year-old law known as DOMA.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, a Republican appointee of former President George W. Bush, concluded the federal law violates equal protection rights because it denies the same benefits available to heterosexual couples.
...The Obama administration has sided with Golinski in the case, arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional. Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, have jumped in to defend the law, filing the notice of appeal on Friday.
...With cases unfolding in several federal courts, many experts predict the issue will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court."
More pressure for Democrats to "come out" for gay marriage? From a Young Democrats of America press release:
Today, Young Democrats of America’s Executive Director Emily Tisch Sussman ... [endorsed] language proposed by Freedom to Marry as part of its Democrats: Say I Do campaign calling on the national party to include a freedom to marry plank in the national Democratic party’s 2012 platform.
"As the Executive Director of Young Democrats of America, I represent young people, and the way we connect young people back to Democratic politics is by speaking out for what is right and taking action,” said Sussman. “Polling shows that 70 percent of voters 18-34 support the freedom to marry, and for many of our members, it’s a cause that goes to the core of why they consider themselves Democrats. It is time to realize that marriage is no longer an effective wedge issue; it is a cause that we as Democrats should be leading on.”
Ted Olson was considered an "originalist" -- a guy who believes in respecting the meaning of our Constitution. Now he's pushing for a right to gay marriage that would overturn laws in 44 states, and take away our right to vote for marriage. How much money is he being paid?
Liberal voices express concern over the new "partial pro-bono" model pioneered by Ted Olson's law firm:
It's been a big month for the American Foundation for Equal Rights [AFER], the nonprofit launched in 2009 to undo California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.
It's not the typical model for civil rights litigation: Usually established advocacy groups pair with private lawyers working for free. AFER was launched specifically to file a federal challenge to Prop 8, and half of its all-star legal team is working for partial pay.
This new model seems to be working. But questions remain about how it could change the way firms serve pro bono clients.
... AFER's big coup was recruiting Gibson, Dunn partner Theodore Olson, the former U.S. Solicitor General under George W. Bush who argued opposite Boies in Bush v. Gore, to join the case.
... Jennifer Pizer, former director of the National Marriage Project at Lambda Legal who is now legal director at UCLA's the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, is thrilled with the progress of the challenge.
But she voices some concern about the "partial pro bono" idea taking hold. Vulnerable communities and social justice movements have long depended on large, elite firms donating their time, Pizer said.
"I think the main question for the legal community — and society generally — is whether Gibson's doing this litigation for substantial fees will prompt a shift in how the prestigious national law firms think about high-profile public interest cases," said Pizer.
"It would be a troubling unintended consequence of this important case if it were to diminish the abiding willingness of the private bar to devote significant resources to pro bono representation," Pizer said. -- Law.com
Advocates of same-sex marriage turned in more than enough signatures to move ahead with a citizens initiative that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in Maine, the Secretary of State's Office ruled Thursday.
... Advocates of same-sex marriage, who lost in 2009 at the ballot box in a 53-47 percent vote, say enough Mainers have changed their minds that the measure will pass this time.
... Brian Souchet, director of the Office for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, said he fully expected that the advocates would get enough signatures.
But, he said, they will have a harder time convincing the public that it's time to allow same-sex marriage in Maine.
"This is a group that's attempting to redefine marriage," he said. "We don't see how a majority of Maine voters are going to go for that."
... Bob Emrich, who is organizing a coalition of opponents that will include the Christian Civic League of Maine, Concerned Women for America and the National Organization for Marriage, said he's cautiously optimistic that voters haven't changed their minds on the issue since 2009.
"We're much better prepared than we were before," he said. "I don't know anyone other than EqualityMaine folks who think things have changed."
In a statement released Thursday night by the Catholic diocese, Bishop Richard Malone said, "The church will remain firm in her constant teaching that marriage is exclusively the union of one woman and one man -- a nearly universally accepted truth until very recently. ... The church advises people to read the proposed legislation very closely before they vote on it."
A precursor to "affirmative action" for gays and lesbians?
In order to make sure gays and lesbians are adequately represented on the judicial bench, the state of California is requiring all judges and justices to reveal their sexual orientation. The announcement was made in an internal memo sent to all California judges and justices.
“[The Administrative Office of the Courts] is contacting all judges and justices to gather data on race/ethnicity, gender identification, and sexual orientation,” reads an email sent by Romunda Price of the Administrative Office of the Courts. A copy of Price’s was obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
... “Yes, the e-mail is authentic and accurate,” Carrizosa confirmed in an email. “The original bill, which simply provided for 50 new judgeships, was amended in the Assembly in August 2006, to address concerns that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not appointing enough women and minorities to the bench. In 2011, Senator Ellen Corbett expanded the reporting requirement to include gender identification and sexual orientation.” -- The Weekly Standard
This week on Public Discourse, Justin Dyer explains the jurisprudential missteps that lead some to think traditional marriage is unconstitutional:
...The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that California’s traditional definition of marriage, approved by a voter referendum in 2008, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, and some legal commentators expect that the Supreme Court will soon take the opportunity to overturn the traditional marriage laws remaining on the books in forty-three states. Such a prospect, as a matter of constitutional law, would have been unthinkable only a decade or two ago. What happened?
... The new conception of liberty underpinning Lawrence made biological sex irrelevant to coupling and dissociated sex from reproduction, child-rearing, and the like—leaving traditional proscriptions of non-marital sex standing on shaky constitutional ground. And so it would seem, as Antonin Scalia noted in dissent, that the Court’s opinion also dismantled “the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.”
... Whether the Supreme Court or history will settle on same-sex marriage in this way remains to be seen, but there is one reason to suspect it will not: the rationale for same-sex marriage undercuts the very reasons why we have a public institution called “marriage” in the first place. The old definition of marriage supposed that men and women were complementary by nature and that the state, barring some case of neglect or abuse, had an interest in legally binding fathers and mothers to each other and to their children. On the old account, to say marriage was between a man and a woman simply followed from what marriage, according to its nature and public purpose, is.
A group forming to oppose redefining marriage in England has released a video of their launch event.
Colin Hart of The Christian Institute says during the presentations: "Marriage was not dreamt up by government ... this government cannot simply overturn thousands of years of history by redefining it, especially when no political party made it part of their election manifesto."
During the Q&A, Fiona Bruce, Conservative MP, says: "A committed relationship between a man and a woman gives children the best opportunity to flourish in terms of health, education, and welfare. And we alter that, change that, at our peril. And it's the children who will pay a price. And that's why I'm so concerned and that's why I'm here today."
Check-out their website here.
Legal scholar Ed Whelan at NRO's Bench Memos blog:
Yesterday, Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California ruled (inGolinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management) that the Defense of Marriage Act could not constitutionally be applied to bar a lesbian employee of the Ninth Circuit from receiving federal health-insurance coverage for her same-sex spouse. Judge White granted summary judgment for the plaintiff employee (which means that he concluded that there were no disputed issues of material fact that needed to be resolved at trial). Judge White’s ruling is the first to determine that DOMA is subject to “heightened scrutiny,” rather than more deferential “rational basis” review (though he also opined that DOMA would flunk rational-basis review). Because the Obama administration abandoned its duty to defend DOMA, the federal government’s interest was represented by the U.S. House of Representatives.
... [Judge] White “finds that the unequivocal evidence demonstrates that, although not completely politically powerless, the gay and lesbian community lacks meaningful political power.” (Slip op. at 23.) A supposedly compelling piece of evidence: “Only a handful of states have successfully passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, and only a few more have been required to afford equal marital rights to gay and lesbian individuals through judicial decisions.” (Slip op. at 22.) In short, gays and lesbians lack “meaningful political power” because they haven’t succeeded in broadly redefining marriage, so White will subject DOMA to heightened scrutiny in order to redefine marriage for purposes of federal law. What a farce.
Read Judge White's 43-page decision here (PDF).
Baltimore’s Cardinal Edwin O’Brien says he is not surprised by the state Senate’s approval of gay marriage, but that the move threatens families.
The Senate approved a bill to allow same-sex unions Thursday evening, setting Maryland up to be the eighth state to legalize same-sex unions when Gov. Martin O’Malley signs the bill next week.
O’Brien issued a release later Thursday saying neither the church nor government should be able to redefine marriage, a common cry among opponents of the legislation.
O’Brien pledged that the Baltimore Archdiocese will work to overturn the law.
Opponents have vowed to bring the legislation to referendum on the November ballot. They will need to collect more than 55,000 valid signatures from Maryland voters to do so.
Under Alberta’s new Education Act, homeschoolers and faith-based schools will not be permitted to teach that homosexual acts are sinful as part of their academic program, says the spokesperson for Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk.
“Whatever the nature of schooling – homeschool, private school, Catholic school – we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,” Donna McColl, Lukaszuk’s assistant director of communications, told LifeSiteNews on Wednesday evening.
“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life, you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added.
Reacting to the remarks, Paul Faris of the Home School Legal Defence Association said the Ministry of Education is “clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to violate the private conversations families have in their own homes.”
“A government that seeks that sort of control over our personal lives should be feared and opposed,” he added.
Betraying marriage has consequences, as the Buffalo News reports:
Erie County Conservatives dealt a major blow to State Sen. Mark J. Grisanti's re-election hopes Thursday evening by spurning the Buffalo Republican and endorsing Democrat Charles M. Swanick.
In a move that could ultimately determine which major party controls the State Senate, the often-influential minor party denied its line to Grisanti and reunited with Swanick, a longtime Conservative friend who served 26 years in the County Legislature before retiring in 2005.
...The Conservative decision also marks a decisive rejection of Grisanti, who achieved his upset victory in 2010 on the strength of the Conservative line. He then infuriated some in the party with his vote last year in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.
"Chuck Swanick is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-Second Amendment and a fiscal conservative," said Erie County Conservative Chairman Ralph C. Lorigo.
"I understand the argument made to us that the Republican Senate may hang in the balance," he said. "Unfortunately, a number of people on my board feel the Republican Senate has not been there for the job we expect them to do."
... Lorigo said Grisanti raised the sharpest Conservative ire for breaking his promise not to vote for same-sex marriage and voting to impose a "millionaires tax" that the chairman said was disguised as a middle-class tax break.
... "The worst problem he has is the question about his integrity," he added, referring to Grisanti's promise to the party not to vote for the marriage bill.
PolitickerNY on the ongoing political consequences of the vote to redefine marriage in New York:
Councilman Lew Fidler, the Democratic candidate in the special election for former State Senator Carl Kruger’s seat, put out a long list of 266 endorsements when his campaign began. Now, it seems at least a handful of these backers, mostly rabbis, are no longer on board with Mr. Fidler as he campaigns in the heavily Jewish, southern Brooklyn district.
One of these original endorsers, Rabbi Chaim Benoliel, even signed a letter saying a vote for Mr. Fidler is contrary to Torah law due to his socially liberal positions.
... Rabbi Shlomo Churba Cohen, listed on Mr. Fidler’s announcement as “Shurba Cohen,” is another backer that has withdrawn his support. Earlier this afternoon, Rabbi Cohen’s son Dovid confirmed his father wanted his name taken off Mr. Fidler’s endorsement list.
Although the son declined to state the reason for his father’s shift, Joseph Hayon, a political liaison for Jews for Morality, said he talked to Rabbi Cohen and the decision was due to Mr. Fidler’s stance on gay marriage. Mr. Hayon said the various rabbis wanted to “send a message to Albany and Washington that we will not vote for any candidate that pledges to vote for gay marriage
