Grisanti is whining on his Facebook page:
True. NOM and the Conservative Party of New York promised that if Grisanti betrayed his constituents on marriage that we would hold him accountable, and so we are.
"...Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from the Buffalo area, said he was attacked on Friday night after trying to play the role of a mediator when he saw two men arguing in the lobby bar at the Seneca Niagara Casino and Hotel. The senator told reporters that he stepped in to calm them down, and that before he knew it, he was being struck in the head and his wife was on the ground, being pummeled by two women.
But several witnesses in recent days have stepped forward to say that Mr. Grisanti was the aggressor.
... The timing is problematic for Mr. Grisanti, who was one of four Republican senators who broke party ranks in casting the decisive votes to pass a same-sex-marriage bill last year. He will probably face a difficult re-election campaign, even if the Senate Republicans succeed in making him a new district tailored to improve his odds."
The Buffalo News adds:
"...a new controversy about the rumble arose Monday evening when another Seneca Nation businessman told The Buffalo News he heard Grisanti yelling racial epithets at a black security officer during the Friday night incident. However, no racial epithets can be heard in a cellphone video of the incident given to the News by an attorney for another Seneca businessman.
The video shows Grisanti being held on the floor and later put in a chokehold by security officers.
The allegation of racist remarks was made by businessman Ross L. John Sr., a former member of the Senecas' Tribal Council. John said he is certain that he heard Grisanti "at least twice" yelling a harsh racial epithet at a black security officer who had subdued him."
Please keep this girl and her family in your prayers:
A 14-year-old homeschooler who testified before the Maryland state senate against a bill redefining marriage has been the subject of cyberbullying, vicious name-calling, and death threats.
...After audio of her uncharacteristically mature testimony was posted on YouTube, the story went viral on homosexual activist websites—and death threats quickly followed.TFP Student Action, a Roman Catholic organization dedicated to traditional morality, recorded several of the most offensive threats in a press release. A commenter on the YouTube video wrote, “If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise.”
Other YouTube comments ranged from, “Her parents should be exterminated,” to, “Kill this child and his [sic] parent, for my 11 birthday would be a wonderful gift, thanks.”
A comment posted on LGBTNation.com said, ““And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what its like to be harassed and bullied…”
Since TFP issued its press release, the comments have not moderated. Supporters of same-sex “marriage” continue to wish violence, sexual assault, or censorship upon the girl. -- LifeSiteNews
My Dear Friends,
Prop 8 is headed to the full Ninth Circuit, as chief legal eagle Chuck Cooper and his crack legal team announced this week.
Here's the thing I want you to notice about how this case is unfolding.
First, as the New York Times recently admitted, even Judge Reinhardt and his liberal colleagues did not bite on the big arguments endorsed by Judge Walker and the alleged dream team of California Ted Olson and David Boies.
The majority did not accept the broadest argument pressed by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the celebrity legal team challenging Proposition 8, the voter initiative that overturned a California Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage. Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies had urged the appeals court to find that the federal Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry—a rationale that would apply in all 50 states.
Instead Judge Reinhardt went for an allegedly "smaller" argument that applies only to California and a few other states: Once a state grants civil unions, it cannot retreat from gay marriage.
The gay legal establishment applauds this decision. Why? Because they believe it makes it less likely the case will end up being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The New York Times lets the cat out of the bag: "Many gay rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief. They had long been wary of the Proposition 8 suit, preferring a state-by-state litigation and lobbying strategy over betting the farm on a case that was likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court. Some said they hoped the justices would now decline to hear an idiosyncratic case affecting a single state."
The gay legal establishment is desperately trying to keep the Supreme Court from reviewing their work.
Why? Because they don't really think they can win.
There is no federal Constitutional right to gay marriage. Gay people in the United States are hardly a powerless minority in need of the extraordinary special protections the Court developed, under the authority of the 14th Amendment, to prevent racial discrimination.
And they know it!
Please help us protect Prop 8 in court by giving generously to defend marriage, the rights of voters, and our Constitution from judges like Reinhardt.
Marriage in New Jersey is headed back to state court, after Gov. Chris Christie followed through on his promise to veto same-sex marriage.
This week a New Jersey judge ruled that the attorney general appointed by Chris Christie had offered arguments for marriage that were just too weak—"tradition"—and reinstated the argument made by same-sex couples that New Jersey's marriage law violates the federal Constitution—because New Jersey permits civil unions!
Marriage in Washington state is headed to the voters. Joseph Backholm is heading up the Family Policy Institute of Washington, and an initial poll from a Democratic polling firm suggests that even in this blue secular state, the people are not enthusiastic about gay marriage. Right now, voters say they are roughly divided over repealing the law—better than the initial polls out of California!
Rob Schwarzwalder, a senior vice-president of the Family Research Council, just announced a personal boycott of Starbucks over the company's endorsement and promotion of gay marriage in the state of Washington:
"[CEO Howard] Schultz's decrying of divisiveness rings a bit hollow when he plunges his company feet-first into the culture wars. ...Claiming to be post-political and then allowing one's chief corporate spokesperson to say that same-sex 'marriage' is 'is core to who we are and what we value as a company' are assertions that don't quite add up.
"So, for now, at least, I will buy my overpriced flavored coffees elsewhere. I dislike boycotts for a number of reasons, but am undertaking a personal one at present. Being for marriage, as understood in the Judeo-Christian context and Western tradition, is much more to 'the core of who I am' than a Starbucks iced mocha ever will be."
In Maryland pastors are asking their flocks to think about what's really core to who they are and what they value.
The Maryland senate will probably vote today on same-sex marriage. Maryland is one of the states which permit the people to veto bills passed by the legislature.
And pastors in Maryland, especially the black church, are showing that they will not give up marriage without a fight, as even the Washington Post makes clear:
Holding a Bible and an 8-month-old baby, the Rev. Nathaniel B. Thomas stood before his congregation at Forestville New Redeemer Baptist Church on Sunday and declared that last week's vote in the Maryland House of Delegates supporting same-sex marriage will spark a new battle.
"It ain't over until God says that it is over," Thomas said. "It took one woman to take prayer out of schools. There are too many weak-knee Christians. This is bigger than same-sex marriage. It is about changing society."
"This is really a wake-up call for the faith community," agreed the Rev. Elwood Gray, pastor of the Peace in the Valley Baptist Church in Silver Spring.
Money talks in politics. Fawning media coverage also helps. But at times like these we also know: There are forces in the universe greater than money or politics; and with your help we will take the fight for marriage to the people, all across this great land, and we will win.
Thank you! I'm so grateful to the thousands of you who have fought back, spoken for marriage, sacrificed your time and your treasure in defense of something so basic, so wonderful and so good: God's vision of marriage, the natural understanding of marriage, rooted in Scripture, yes, but also in common sense, history and human nature.
In other national news this week, the Human Rights Campaign is going on TV to make the absurd argument that supporting marriage is going to hurt the GOP candidates for president. (As you know, all the remaining candidates except Ron Paul have signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, promising to fight judge-lead efforts to impose gay marriage.) Of course the media echoes that view.
In the Wall Street Journal, Bill McGurn put his finger on what he calls "the most glaring double standard" in American politics:
When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.
Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.
In the media, he means. That glaring double standard "helps explain why candidates with social views that are fairly conventional among ordinary Americans—the citizens of 31 states including California have rejected same-sex marriage when put to a vote—find themselves depicted as extreme."
Here's NOM's co-founder Maggie Gallagher on Al-Jazeera taking on the Human Rights Campaign's communication director and his absurd arguments with her usual grace:
When people start down the path of pushing a fundamental untruth, it's hard for them to figure out when to stop fibbing!
Federally, the Obama administration announced once again that it's punting on the defense of DOMA, this time in the context of same-sex couples in the military. Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, read the letter Attorney General Eric Holder sent explaining Pres. Obama's position, and just scratched his head:
"It's all just made up. There's no part of the Constitution that talks about sexual orientation, the need for the government to give benefits to people," he said. "This is really troubling because it's a pattern. We're not dealing with an administration that adheres to the basic constitutional principle that the government is supposed to do only what it's given power to do by the Constitution."
Red Alert Politics, an online hub for young conservatives sponsored by The Weekly Standard and the Washington Examiner, interviewed our own Thomas Peters on using social media to fight for marriage and other good causes.
...In addition to blogging, Peters works at the National Organization for Marriage where he is overseeing a project to identify and encourage young activists who are pro-marriage.
Marriage could be a big issue this year, with a number of states—like Washington and Maryland— considering legislation to legalize gay marriage. Other states, including Minnesota and North Carolina, are trying to add traditional marriage to the state constitution.
As part of his work for NOM, Peters travels the country speaking to young people, and teaching them how to defend their views.
"We have to work hard at understanding our own conservative principles so we are better equipped to defend and promote them," he said.
And social media is key, he noted, "It contributes to a more robust and free democracy."
We are not giving up on any state, or any court—or on the next generation.
When the going gets tough—that's when we recognize that we have to depend on faith, hope, and above all love of our country and our Creator to see us through.
It's an honor to serve as your voice for our shared values.
Pat Hall, pastor of True Light Covenant Church in Minnesota, writes to ThisWeekLive:
In regard to the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment, the clergy are uniting and coming out in defense of the definition of marriage.
We are teaching and preaching to inform our members as to the long-term effect this decision will have in our culture.
We are not allowing a few to redefine that which has existed long before the state of Minnesota. Marriage is and has always been between one man and one woman.
It would simply be inappropriate to append something so different to that which is already so well defined.
The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment was not created to disrespect any particular community or prevent others from having committed relationships. The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment was created to protect that which has always been defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.
My appeal to our community is that we protect marriage as a vital part of our tradition and our heritage. I also appeal to those on both sides of this issue to respectfully agree to disagree on this matter yet agree to unite and protect those rights that are so near and dear to our forefathers.
The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment is not intended to be an act of war, rather, it is simply intended to protect, treasure and cherish that which has always been.
Gov. Christie of New Jersey and the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart get into a spirited debate about marriage, referendums and President Obama's "silence" on marriage.
Christie says at one point: "Let's have the President of the United States show some courage, come on this program, look into the camera like I'm looking into the camera and state his position [on marriage]. He won't. Because he wants to have it both ways. I'm not looking to have it both ways. I vetoed the bill. That's my position. What I've offered to the supporters of same-sex marriage is, if one of your reasons for why I should have signed it, was because you're telling me the majority of the people in New Jersey want it, then prove it. Put it on the ballot and prove it. At least I'm standing up for what I believe in. The President has hidden on this issue. He wants to have it both ways. And the public pronouncements, out of his mouth, are "he opposes same-sex marriage." The President opposes same-sex marriage."
Over at NRO's The Corner blog:
Chris Christie is publicly opposed to same-sex marriage and indeed, to his credit, he fulfilled a campaign promise by vetoing a gay-marriage bill. But he raised eyebrows and doubts by appointing to the New Jersey Supreme Court an openly gay judge who has publicly pushed for gay marriage.
Now a New Jersey judge has reinstated a gay couple’s claim that New Jersey’s marriage laws violate the federal Constitution — in part, she said, because the defense of the marriage law offered by Christie’s attorney general, Jeffrey Chiesa, was so weak: “tradition.”
Chiesa is not some rogue Republican; he was Christie’s chief counsel for several years before the governor made him AG. It raises eyebrows, because it’s frankly what Obama’s attorney general did for years — pretend to defend the law, by offering only a token defense. Odd to see this happening now with a Republican governor beloved by Ann Coulter.
New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez’s (R) opposition to same-sex marriage has led to her stylist refusing to cut her hair ever again unless she changes her stance.
According to KOB-TV in Albuquerque, Antonio Darden declined to work on Martinez’s hairdo after cutting her hair three times previously. Darden, who runs Antonio’s Hair Studio in Sante Fe, said Martinez’s office repeatedly called to schedule another appointment with him only to be denied.
...Darden added: “I think it’s just equality, dignity for everyone. I think everybody should be allowed the right to be together. My partner and I have been together for 15 years.”
Martinez has stated that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman only.
Kalley Yanta, in another excellent Minnesota Marriage Minute, responds to the common claim by gay marriage activists that redefining marriage won't change anything.
"Gay marriage won't exist alongside traditional marriage. Our traditional understanding of marriage will be stripped from the law and will be replaced with this new genderless definition of marriage."
The Associated Press:
The Maryland Senate is delaying debate on a bill to legalize gay marriage.
Republican leaders asked that discussion of the bill and potential amendments be postponed until Thursday.
Sen. President Thomas V. Mike Miller said the Senate could gather into the evening that day to consider the bill, which barely passed the House of Delegates last week. Debate could continue Friday before a final vote is taken.
Opponents have offered an amendment to change the bill’s effective date and say they have asked Attorney General Doug Gansler for an opinion on the constitutionality of amendments added to the House version of the bill.
You can take action to contact your state senator in Maryland here.
NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher's latest syndicated column:
In an appearance on Al Jazeera, I was asked: Why is gay marriage emerging as a big issue in the campaign?
Obviously economic issues dominate this year, as they do every bad economic year. But thanks to President Obama, the culture war is heating up as well.
For the first time, voters will be offered a clear contrast between a Democrat who supports what the courts are doing to marriage and a Republican who opposes it.
But the biggest reason gay marriage is emerging as an issue is because the federal courts are now pushing the culture wars, and Obama is cooperating with them:
Two judges of the most liberal court in America -- the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- just took away 7 million Californians' right to vote for marriage.
For those of us who fought hard to give voters this right, by helping put Proposition 8 on the ballot, this 2-1 divided opinion not only takes away their rights, but insults the good name of millions of decent, hardworking, law-abiding Americans. -- Human Events
Rob Schwarzwalder is the Senior Vice President for the Family Research Council:
"...Starbucks last month endorsed the effort of some of the Evergreen State’s leading politicians to enact homosexual “marriage.” Although this initiative passed in the state legislature and was signed into law by departing Gov. Christine Gregoire, it likely will be on the state ballot in November.
... [CEO Howard] Schultz’s decrying of divisiveness rings a bit hollow when he plunges his company feet-first into the culture wars. The effort to redefine marriage to include same-sex partners is a radical social innovation, one fraught with dangerous implications for individuals, families, and culture. Claiming to be post-political and then allowing one’s chief corporate spokesperson to say that same-sex “marriage” is “is core to who we are and what we value as a company” are assertions that don’t quite add up.
So, for now, at least, I will buy my overpriced flavored coffees elsewhere. I dislike boycotts for a number of reasons, but am undertaking a personal one at present. Being for marriage, as understood in the Judeo-Christian context and Western tradition, is much more to “the core of who I am” than a Starbucks iced mocha ever will be." -- LifeSiteNews
Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, on Attorney General Holder's decision to cease defending another key aspect of the Defense of Marriage Act:
The Obama administration did an about-face concerning military policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act on Friday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress the Department of Justice will not stand in the way of any service members’ same-sex spouses suing the military for spousal benefits.
... Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, said Holder’s letter is constitutionally weak.
“It’s all just made up. There’s no part of the Constitution that talks about sexual orientation, the need for the government to give benefits to people,” he said. “This is really troubling because it’s a pattern. We’re not dealing with an administration that adheres to the basic constitutional principle that the government is supposed to do only what it’s given power to do by the Constitution.” -- CitizenLink
NOM's Thomas Peters was interviewed in Red Alert Politics, an online hub for young conservatives sponsored by The Weekly Standard and The Washington Examiner, about how he uses social media to fight for protecting marriage and other good causes:
... In addition to blogging, Peters works at the National Organization for Marriage where he is overseeing a project to identify and encourage young activists who are pro-marriage.
Marriage could be a big issue this year, with a number of states – like Washington and Maryland – considering legislation to legalize gay marriage. Other states, including Minnesota and North Carolina, are trying to add traditional marriage to the state constitution.
As part of his work for NOM, Peters travels the country speaking to young people, and teaching them how to defend their views.
“We have to work hard at understanding our own conservative principles so we are better equipped to defend and promote them,” He said.
And social media is key, he noted, “It contributes to a more robust and free democracy.”
...Though the [Prop 8] case will certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, CitizenLink Judicial Issues Analyst Bruce Hausknecht pointed out the advantages of asking for an en banc review by the 9th.
“This keeps all options available,” he said. “Although the 9th Circuit is dominated by Democrat-appointed judges, there is always the hope that the 11-judge en banc panel chosen via lottery could contain enough judicial conservatives that it might reverse the three-judge panel’s decision. And failing that, the Supreme Court option is always available afterward. It’s always wise, in the uncertain world of litigation, to keep your options open and explore all available alternatives.”
The 9th Circuit has the option of turning the case down. If that happens, the ProtectMarriage.com legal team will immediately appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.