Jim Galloway of Political Insider on two GOP candidates jockeying over whose pro-marriage conservative credentials are more solid:
You can tell we’re reaching the end of the 2012 session of the Legislature – election-year attacks have already resumed.
The 9th District congressional campaign of Doug Collins, a state lawmaker from Gainesville, has signaled that gay marriage will have its traditional place in the Republican primary – by passing along statements made by Collins’ chief rival, north Georgia radio talk show host Martha Zoller.
Why is this an issue? Because Georgian conservatives care about marriage!
North Carolina, the last state in the South without a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, can play a key role in the national debate over the topic, a prominent Southern Baptist leader told an audience in Wake Forest on Wednesday.
Richard Land, president of the convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is often the point man on policy issues for the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, and his presence in North Carolina signals how closely the May 8 referendum vote here is being watched around the country.
“Make no mistake, those (Supreme Court) justices are watching what the people of North Carolina say about this issue,” Land told an audience at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Land said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court would be hesitant to allow couples of the same gender to marry if other states join the 29 already with amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That could change if states like North Carolina reject such amendments, he said.
“If we lose, they will exercise their judicial imperialism,” he said. “That’s what’s at stake.”
Here is video of NOM co-founder Maggie Gallagher's appearance last week on MSNBC with Thomas Roberts (her first appearance was goofed by the left-leaning network):
Thanks so much to each one of you who helped us meet our goal of 25,000 petition signers by the end of this week at DumpStarbucks.com! The fight for corporate fairness--and marriage--has just begun!
As this Alliance Defense Fund video explains, "Hundreds of Christians and other El Paso citizens are facing jail time for exercising their constitutionally protected right to speak out against Mayor John Cook's policies":
"...For Mary Saunders of Rochester, who signed and sent one of the campaign's form protest letters to the Portsmouth Herald, the threat of the so-called gay agenda is greater than the threat posed by same-sex marriage alone.
Saunders said she found the letter online, though she couldn't recall the Web site. It states: "Starbucks Corporation has begun a public campaign to rewrite our marriage laws and to recognize same-sex marriage."
It states she will no longer buy at Starbucks and implores others to "dump" the habit.
The Web site offered additional information outlining the potential impact of Starbucks' policy, said Saunders.
... Starbucks' support of same-sex marriage is "pushing the gay agenda," she said."
Kalley Yanta debunks the tired meme that claims protecting marriage somehow harms the economy.
She argues: "This argument is internally inconsistent with other arguments gay-marriage backers advance. For example, they argue that more gay and lesbian couples are making their homes are making their home in Minnesota, so we should redefine marriage to accommodate them. Yet if true, that is happening when we already define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
She goes on to say: "The facts show that states with marriage protection amendments already in their state constitution are our top performing economic states."
She then cites four studies supporting her claims. It's a great summary!
Please take a moment to watch and share it this weekend:
The Washington Post writes today about David Cameron's (faltering) attempt to make gay marriage a "conservative" cause in the UK, but what is more interesting to us are these comments by an openly gay Labor MP:
"...By offering the proposal, Cameron has put his party out in front of even many gay advocates here who had seen other issues, such as stiffer penalties for hate crimes, as higher priorities. Although gay groups are vigorously campaigning in support of the measure, advocates initially debated whether they should even endorse a proposal seen by some as bringing a patriarchal and archaic institution to same-sex couples.
“This is more of David Cameron trying to drag the Conservatives kicking and screaming into the modern world,” said Ben Bradshaw, a ranking Labor lawmaker who in 1997 became one of Britain’s first openly gay members of Parliament. “Of course, we’ll support it, but this is pure politics on their part. This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights” with civil partnerships.
He added: “We’ve never needed the word ‘marriage,’ and all it’s done now is get a bunch of bishops hot under the collar. We’ve been pragmatic, not making the mistake they have in the U.S., where the gay lobby has banged on about marriage.”
The latest turn in the special election to replace Carl Kruger in the State Senate has given the Republican candidate, David Storobin, a gigantic lead of one vote over his Democratic opponent Lew Fidler, multiple tipsters toldThe Politicker.
...And, with all of the invalid absentee and provisional ballots finished being reviewed and contested today, Mr. Storobin’s lead has hopped up to that single point.
These tiny shifts in the margin are relatively inconsequential, however, due to the hundreds of contested absentee and provisional ballots that were simply set aside when one of the two campaigns objected to them. These votes will now remain uncounted for three days to allow time for a court order should one of the campaigns seek legal action, so Mr. Storobin’s tiny lead could hold through the weekend.
If there’s no court order, the contested ballots will then be tallied up at the Board of Elections. And then, if the margin either of the candidates is leading by is less than 0.5%of the 20,000 total votes cast (around 110 in this election), there will be an automatic hand recount of every ballot.
Thomas Roberts was slated to interview the National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher, but the camera feed showed an empty chair, with Roberts saying that Gallagher didn’t show up (h/t Inside Cable News).
There was just one big, glaring problem: Gallagher was ready to appear, but was in a different studio.
ICN took issue with how Roberts handled the situation:
The proper way to handle it is to say that a guest was scheduled to appear but couldn’t make it in time and we hope they will appear in the future. Then you move on and don’t refer to it again. Given that you don’t know what actually happened you must err on the side of caution…for reasons that now seem all too obvious given that it was MSNBC booking that screwed up.
The UK Telegraph on a groundswell of public support for marriage:
More than 300,000 people have joined a campaign against David Cameron’s plan to legalise same-sex marriage.
Organisers claimed that their petition had become the biggest public campaign since the 2010 election.
It highlights the support for the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, they said.
Earlier this month, the Government proposed redefining civil marriage laws so that the term can apply to civil unions between same-sex couples. There will be no change to religious marriage.
Senior Conservatives, including ministers, have joined Christian leaders in opposing the proposals.
The leader of Britain’s Sikh organisations said the proposal was an “assault on religion” while the country’s largest Muslim grouping has also voiced its opposition.
The Coalition 4 Marriage set up a petition against the plan, which has so far attracted more than 300,200 signatures. The group is calling on the Government to retain the current definition of marriage as the voluntary union between one man and one woman for life.
Colin Hart, the campaign director, said the surge in support since the Government began its consultation was further evidence of the unpopularity of the proposal.
“There has been a staggering response to the petition, launched last month, which shows just how many ordinary men and women care about this issue,” he said.
“I hope the Government will consider the growing opposition to its proposals, which are being pushed without the British people being given an opportunity to make their views clear.”
...What is most frustrating about Starbucks’ liberal support is that it totally disregards the traditional views of many customers and staff members. Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Starbucks should heed Mr. Strohbar’s warnings.
Ponder the impact of lost business from loyal customers. In this economy, I was willing to spend more on a cup of coffee than a gallon of gas! Big Oil vs. Big Coffee; I’m not sure which would win. Coffee-loving, traditional values voters deserve more respect.
I guess it’s time to bite the bullet and drink the overly strong office coffee.
This news is slightly dated but still important - the most notable thing that has changed since this was published is that a challenger to Sen. Saland has also emerged!
EDITOR'S NOTE: The original content of this post has been removed at the request of the copyright owner.
