No comment, this speaks for itself:
“Maggie Gallagher has blood on her hands,” Karger said, blaming the hate from her organization for the deaths of gay teens.
He called her disgusting and said he wonders why, if she believes in traditional marriage so much, she doesn’t wear a wedding ring.
“She a walking time bomb,” Karger said of Gallagher’s behavior. --The Dallas Voice
Rick Santorum was at yesterday's presidential hopefuls' debate in South Carolina. The audience loved this response he made when asked about the infamous "truce" on moral issues called for by Mitch Daniels:
From the Atlanta Republic:
Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens said during a speech this week to the Glynn County (Ga.), Bar Association the firm’s decision “sets a dangerous precedent and could have a chilling effect on law firms,” according to The Republic.
He also noted that the same firm represented detainees at the military's Guantanamo Bay complex.
David Scharfenberg conducts a postmortem on SSM in the Ocean State:
But if the inside game was lacking, the outside game was problematic, too. Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI), the main advocacy group, was riven by internal conflict and stumbled badly in the early going.
Among [former MERI Spokesman Bill] Fischer's biggest critiques of MERI: a hesitance to engage, directly, with Bishop Thomas J. Tobin and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, which joined with the National Organization for Marriage-Rhode Island (NOM-RI), the local chapter of the leading anti-gay nuptials group in the country, to mount an aggressive lobbying effort from the start of the legislative session.
Tobin penned editorials and made direct contact with several legislators. The Reverend Bernard Healey, the church's chief lobbyist, was relentless. And NOM-RI launched a $100,000 television campaign and delivered an early barrage of phone calls and postcards that proved difficult to overcome.
"We let NOM get the jump on us.."
... [RI] advocates also hope to win substantial support from a national gay lobby that is increasingly focused on state-level races as the path to same-sex marriage laws and other priorities.
Tim Gill, a publicity-shy Colorado technology magnate at the center of the national lobby, has donated thousands to Rhode Island candidates and is paying $9000 per month this legislative session for two of the state's top lobbyists, Rick McAuliffe and Jeffrey Taylor of the Mayforth Group.
The hope is that local advocates can keep Gill and his circle of donors engaged as the 2012 elections approach. One argument they will make: Rhode Island's size means a small investment can go a long way.
But even with a well-funded, well-organized campaign, no one thinks the main pillar of opposition to gay marriage — Senate President Paiva Weed — is all that vulnerable. And absent a substantial shift in the membership beneath her, it is hard to imagine the political prospects for a same-sex marriage bill improving markedly in, say, 2013.
From the New York Times:
“Our pastors are fired up by the governor’s assault on marriage,” said the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, a lobbying group that represents evangelical churches in the state. “We’re already in gear.”
And they're not the only ones in gear:
State Senator Joseph P. Addabbo Jr., a Democrat from Queens who has voted against the bill in the past but said he was undecided this time, said, “We’ve gotten about 400 calls and e-mails from voters in the last two weeks, the vast majority of them opposed to the bill.”
From Pennsylvania House State Government Committee Chairman (and State Representative) Daryl Metcalfe's official press release:
[We] announced today the introduction of a Constitutional amendment to allow the citizens of Pennsylvania to precisely define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.“The institution of traditional marriage has never been under greater attack,” said Metcalfe. “This not only includes the special interests who want to permanently redefine marriage, but unfortunately the executive branch and the federal Department of Justice who have blatantly and recklessly refused to uphold and defend its Constitutionality. Once again, it falls to the responsibility of state lawmakers to restore the rule of law and carry out the will of the people.”
Once House Bill 1434 is approved in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly, Pennsylvanians would then have the choice, through voter referendum, to amend the state Constitution to include a provision containing the following language:
“Marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
The language contained in Metcalfe’s legislation is modeled after Florida’s marriage protection amendment, which was approved by more than 60 percent of Florida voters in 2008. The amendment was also unanimously ruled Constitutional by the Florida Supreme Court, after being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
To date, voters in 30 states have ratified similar amendments to their state constitutions.
“Pennsylvania voters deserve the opportunity to do the same,” Metcalfe said. “The definition of marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman,’ defended and upheld by this legislation, is the traditional definition of marriage that has been recognized and accepted throughout history and the world for centuries. It should not be the Obama administration’s Department of Justice and the executive branch bureaucrats that decide this critical issue for our Commonwealth, but rather the voters.”
More progress!
A reader sent this along to us and we thought it would be perfect for an offbeat Friday posting:
Doesn't a lot of this sound familiar?
WASHINGTON – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today launched a nationwide web campaign against the law firm of King & Spalding over their decision to abandon representation of the US House of Representatives in the effort to defend the nation’s marriage law, called the Defense of Marriage Act. The ad campaign tags the firm with the slogan, “We’re There Until You Need Us.”
“King & Spalding have shown themselves to be gutless legal advocates in the face of pressure, abandoning their client after signing a $500,000 agreement to provide representation,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “They were all too happy to bill taxpayers up to $520 per hour to defend DOMA until gay marriage radicals started to complain. Then they cut and ran, abandoning their client in the process. It’s one of the most unprofessional actions we’ve ever seen.”
King & Spalding have been widely criticized for their decision to abandon their client by both supporters and opponents of gay marriage, as well as legal ethicists, media voices, and even Attorney General Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Holder and Kagan praised the action of former King & Spalding partner Paul Clement for resigning from the firm and continuing to represent the US House of Representatives at his new firm of Bancroft PLLC.
“NOM’s ‘We’re There Until You Need Us’ campaign highlights the obvious – that this law firm has shirked its client responsibilities simply because their client advocated a cause unpopular in some quarters,” Brown said. “Yet representing clients facing contentious issues is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. It would appear that King & Spalding believe that murderers and terrorists are entitled to representation, but the nation’s marriage law is not. It’s no wonder that they have come under intense criticism from both the left and the right. They have shown cowardice under pressure, proving they have no principles or integrity.”
The new campaign allows average Americans to express their views directly to King & Spalding’s leadership.
Please visit www.werethereuntilyouneedus.com to learn more.
Here are links to the banner ads in various sizes:
Dear Marriage Supporter,
You've heard the news—King & Spalding, a major U.S. law firm, buckled under pressure from the Human Rights Campaign, reneging on its contract to represent the U.S. House of Representatives in defending the Defense of Marriage Act.
It's a wonderful story of the courage of one man, Paul Clement, standing firm in the face of political pressure, even resigning his position at the firm in order to do what he knows is right.
But there's more to the story, and the fallout for King & Spalding keeps spreading.
"We're There Until You Need Us!"
Today, NOM is launching a new media campaign to expose and hold King & Spalding accountable for abandoning their client, abandoning the American people, and abandoning marriage. Visit WereThereUntilYouNeedUs.com to sign the petition and send a message to King & Spalding's leadership today!
King & Spalding have been widely criticized for their decision to abandon their client by both supporters and opponents of gay marriage, as well as legal ethicists, media voices, and even Attorney General Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.
Even gay marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch have criticized the efforts to bully DOMA defenders into silence. Ted Olson, the one-time conservative now attacking Prop 8, told the L.A. Times, "I don't know of anything comparable to this. You have to be willing to stand your ground."
And the Wall Street Journal mocked "Knave and Spalding," declaring that "once a firm takes on a client it is the firmest of legal obligations to see a case through save for a clear conflict of interest. To drop a case under political pressure is especially unethical. . . . As for King and Spalding, better not turn your back on its lawyers in a firefight."
Their clients are starting to take notice, too. Last Friday, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli fired Kirk & Spalding, telling the firm:
"King & Spalding's willingness to drop a client, the U.S. House of Representatives, in connection with the lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was such an obsequious act of weakness that I feel compelled to end your legal association with Virginia so that there is no chance that one of my legal clients will be put in the embarrassing and difficult situation like the client you walked away from, the House of Representatives."
Days later, the National Rifle Association (NRA) dropped King & Spalding, explaining that when they retain outside counsel, "we expect them to zealously advocate for our interests and not abandon the representation due to pressure from those who may disagree with us."
Other states and organizations who need to be able to count on their lawyers to uphold ethical obligations to their clients may want to look for other counsel as well.
NOM's "We're There Until You Need Us" campaign highlights the obvious—that King & Spalding has shirked its client responsibilities simply because their client advocated a cause unpopular in some quarters. But representing clients facing contentious issues is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. It would appear that King & Spalding believe that murderers and terrorists are entitled to representation, but the nation's marriage law is not.
It's no wonder that they have come under intense criticism from both the left and the right. They have shown cowardice under pressure, proving they have no principles or integrity.
I hope you'll join me in sending them a message today.
Then—and this is key—please forward this email on to your friends and family. The mainstream media would like nothing better than for this story to quickly blow over and be forgotten. And most Americans haven't even heard of King & Spalding's cowardice when it comes to defending marriage and the American people. So help spread the word today!
Faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
Via the AP:
"States are providing large amounts of funding to services along with essentially a license to discriminate with the provision of those services, and it just seems very out of date and inappropriate," said Alan Brotherton, a policy director for ACON, an organization promoting health issues for the gay community.
... Neil Foster, a Newcastle University expert on law and religion, said the Australian situation presents a dichotomy between human rights and religious rights. He considers both equally important rights.
But [Wayne] Morgan, the discrimination law expert, doesn't think the religious freedom argument is valid when it comes to services that extend into the public sector.
"The churches, when they provide these services, they are not propagating their religion," he said. "They are engaging in secular activities."
Supporters of marriage, it's time to get involved and stand up for marriage in New York!
Today, New Yorker's Family Research Foundation announces its "Mayday for Marriage" RV tour.
The Mayday for Marriage tour departs Friday, May 6th, and after stopping in places like Buffalo, Rochester, Staten Island, Long Island, and many others, the tour will culminate in Albany's West Capitol Park on May 24th.
McGuire said, "NYFRF representatives will be on the road taking the debate over 'same-sex marriage' to legislative districts across the Empire State. We're packing our bags, loading an RV wrapped in marriage messaging and making stops at various media availabilities and marriage rallies in local communities throughout the state."
The best way to stay up-to-date with NYFRF's "Mayday for Marriage" activities is to follow progress on Facebook at Facebook.com/AlbanyUpdate or on Twitter at Twitter.com/NYFRF.
Here are some additional events they are planning which we encourage you to participate in!
"Mayday for Marriage" Sunday
May 22nd will be “Mayday for Marriage” Sunday. NYFRF is encouraging the 5,000 churches on our mailing list to focus on marriage during worship services on this particular day. We are asking pastors to publicly pray for marriage in New York State, preach on the biblical definition of marriage, encourage congregants to contact their elected officials on this issue, and finally to take up a special love offering to help underwrite NYFRF’s marriage defense initiative.
"Mayday for Marriage" Albany Rally
The “Mayday for Marriage” tour will culminate on May 24th outside the Capitol Building in Albany’s West Capitol Park. NYFRF is asking New Yorkers from all across the state join us at 11:00 AM on the 24th to let our elected officials know that marriage matters.
Via Deseret News:
Utah taxpayers spend about $276 million on the effects of divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth. But while there are effective tools to strengthen marriage and families, those who statistically need help most are the least likely to seek it out, experts say.
"Those who are younger, less educated and less religious feel that such education is not important. But they are more apt to divorce, as well," said Melanie Reese, coordinator for the Utah Healthy Marriage Initiative, which is housed in the Utah Department of Workforce Services.
... The group said children are particularly impacted by marriage failure, with "potential risks" that include poverty, mental illness, physical illness, infant mortality, lower educational attainment, juvenile delinquency, behavior problems, criminal activity as adults and early unwed parenthood. Reese notes that research shows children who live with both biological parents do better socially than peers in other family structures.
Here's a graphic that accompanies the story:
Rhode Island might want to take note of the troubles a CU billl--without adequate religious liberty protection--is already causing in Illinois:
Illinois begins allowing gay civil union next month. Catholic adoption agencies will then face a choice of working with gay couples or sending them to other groups.
If they turn away gay couples, they might face lawsuits or lose state funding. --Chicago Tribune
... [The] Catholic Conference of Illinois says religious concerns bar its charities from working with gay couples on adoption or foster care.
They worry the charities will be sued or have their state contracts canceled. At a news conference Wednesday, they said that would be a "catastrophe" for Illinois children. --Chicago Tribune
Kudos to Cooper & Kirk! This from the WaPo:
ProtectMarriage.com, in its court filing, argues that Walker had a responsibility to disclose his relationship before the trial.
“It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” the group’s attorneys said in their motion, which was submitted to the district court. “Rather, our submission is grounded in the fundamental principle, reiterated in the governing statute, that no judge ‘is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.’”
Arthur D. Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, called it a “very skillfully done document” because it ties in Walker’s own words from his ruling about marriage.
“He himself has said how beneficial marriage is, and having said all that, wouldn’t a reasonable person think that he would want to?” Hellman said.
But even those who say the argument has merit acknowledge that it may not be enough to persuade a judge to vacate Walker’s ruling. They say Proposition 8 proponents should have raised their concern earlier, when the rumors about Walker’s sexuality began to surface. And they point out that there is no evidence that Walker planned to marry his partner of 10 years.
Still, the challenge may have planted doubt in the public’s mind about Walker’s impartiality, said Gillers, the New York University professor.
“Unfortunately, Walker has muddied the waters and given the opponents of gay marriage the ability to undermine the credibility of his opinion,” he said. “That doesn’t mean the opinion becomes wrong, but it gives the proponents of Proposition 8 ammunition to cast doubt in the public debate.”
Coming hard on the heels of the resignation of Marriage Equality Rhode Island's executive director Kathy Kushnir, MERI spokesman Bill Fischer's resignation bespeaks a genuine disarray among gay marriage advocates in Rhode Island.
Blowback for opposing civil unions?
Fischer said that while there is "a lot of finger-pointing at Gordon Fox," the openly gay Speaker of the House who declared the gay marriage bill dead and embraced a civil unions push instead, advocates "really need to look inward."
