LifeSiteNews: Bill to legalize gay 'marriage' introduced in Maryland legislature
Meanwhile, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has guaranteed “a full fight” in Maryland. Brian Brown, NOM’s president, said the state is on a “dangerous path” toward “radically redefining the most pro-child institution ever.” He maintains most Marylanders do not support same-sex “marriage” and says he expects that “if ignored, they will rise up and overturn the legislature at the ballot box.”
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Wednesday that the California Supreme Court may decide "as soon as next week" whether to weigh in on the federal Proposition 8 appeal and expressed hope that a Southern California Latino would be chosen to succeed departing Justice Carlos R. Moreno.
In her first meeting with reporters since taking over for retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Cantil-Sakauye said she would meet with Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday and discuss the judicial branch budget and Moreno's successor.
Moreno, the only Democrat on the court, is leaving at the end of this month to make more money in the private sector. He was the sole justice on the court to vote to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.
Children often have it rough when their parents divorce, but grown up "kids" may have it even rougher.
Adult offspring whose parents split up later in life face the usual and expected psychological issues: "They may feel like 'everything I thought was real, isn't,'" says Diana Mercer, an attorney-mediator and author of several books on divorce.
From NYT’s City Room Blog:
On some college campuses, students are agitated about the presence of Chick-fil-A, a purveyor of Southern-style chicken sandwiches that has run afoul of some proponents of same-sex marriage. But at a New York University cafeteria, the only place in the city where a craving for Chick-fil-A can be sated, the squawking has been limited.
… In the dining hall, students who were lined up for Chick-fil-A food said they were unaware of the controversy.
… The station serving Chick-fil-A’s food has been a popular part of a food court in the dining hall on University Place in Manhattan since the fall of 2004, Mr. Beckman said. Chick-fil-A won out in a student taste test when the dining hall was being revamped by its operator, Aramark, he said.
… “Thank God for this hidden treasure!” one reviewer wrote on Yelp. “Yes it’s in an N.Y.U. dining hall. But if you feel too weird eating with students you can get plastic bag and take it to Washington Square Park.”
Here’s hoping we can continue to keep poultry a-political.
Yesterday’s bipartisan vote in the Iowa State House hasn’t deterred Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal from his decision to be the one man in Iowa stopping a vote on marriage:
The bipartisan vote in the House was “a big step backwards for the constitutional rights of all Iowans,” Gronstal said.
Danny Carroll, spokesman for the Family Leader, formerly known as the Iowa Family Policy Council, takes Gronstal at his word, but hopes it's not the final word on the resolution.
“The House has spoken, and spoken rather convincingly, with a bipartisan vote in favor of letting the people vote,” Carroll said. “That should mean something to the Iowa Senate.”
The effort to undo the April 2009 Iowa Supreme Court decision in Varnum v. Brien that struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage now is in the hands of the Senate Democratic caucus, which has a 26-24 majority, Carroll said.
“They're the ones who chose (Gronstal) for their leader,” he said.
Some Democratic senators have indicated they support the proposed constitutional amendment and have said they will support it if it comes to the floor. Among them are Senate President Jack Kibbie of Emmetsburg, Tom Hancock of Epworth, Dennis Black of Grinnell and Joe Seng of Davenport.“If there is any way to prevail upon Sen. Gronstal it will have to come from within his caucus,” Carroll said. [Continue reading]
From the Advocate:
"[State] Sen. Allan Kittleman announced his support for the [same-sex marriage] bill in Maryland on Wednesday, becoming the first, and perhaps the only, Republican senator to support the measure..."
... In the statement, he also announced that he would abandon his proposal for a civil unions bill, a consensus attempt he conceived last month that failed to gain traction among gay rights activists and senators from either party."
Last week the New York Times published a fascinating story suggesting that the White House may soon be forced to take a stand on DOMA, one way or the other:
President Obama has balanced on a political tightrope for two years over the Defense of Marriage Act, the contentious 1996 law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Now, two new federal lawsuits threaten to snap that rope out from under him.
Mr. Obama, whose political base includes many supporters of gay rights, has urged lawmakers to repeal the law. But at the same time, citing an executive-branch duty to defend acts of Congress, he has sent Justice Department lawyers into court to oppose suits seeking to strike the law down as unconstitutional.
The President has been candid about his personal opposition to DOMA:
“I have a whole bunch of really smart lawyers who are looking at a whole range of options,” Mr. Obama said, referring to finding a way to end the Defense of Marriage Act. “I’m always looking for a way to get it done, if possible, through our elected representatives. That may not be possible.”
In the meantime, lack of action by the Justice Department, while not explicitly abetting DOMA’s dismantle, still would serve to pull the rug out from under it:
Justice Department officials say they have a responsibility to offer that argument [that DOMA is constitutional] and let courts decide, rather than effectively nullifying a law by not defending it.
In other words, inaction is itself an answer to the question, “Does the Obama Administration support this law passed by Congress?”
At any rate, we may soon get closer to a real answer from Obama’s Administration on DOMA: do they support it, or don’t they?
So says Washington DC’s Cardinal Wuerl in the Washington Post:
Increasingly, there is a tendency to disparage the name and reputation, the character and life, of a person because he or she holds a different position. The identifying of some people as "bigots" and "hate mongers" simply because they hold a position contrary to another's has unfortunately become all too commonplace today. Locally, we have witnessed rhetorical hyperbole that, I believe, long since crossed the line between reasoned discourse and irresponsible demagoguery.
… People and organizations should not be denounced disparagingly as "homophobic" simply because they support the traditional, worldwide, time-honored definition of marriage. The defaming words speak more about political posturing than about reasoned discourse.
Danny Carroll, chairman of the Iowa Family Policy Center speaks of a similar experience:
Carroll said supporters of the marriage amendment have no malice in their hearts.
"In fact, many of those people would be quick to offer an apology to the homosexual community for the way they have been treated over the decades, for the ridicule and at least verbal if not physical abuse that they had been subject to," Carroll said. "We reject that, Mr. Chair. Let me repeat: We reject that, just as much as we reject evangelical Christians being the brunt of name-calling, being called bigots because they simply want the chance to vote on what the definition of marriage is and has been for the last 2,000 years."
From the National Marriage Week USA press release:
As part of an international marriage week movement in 12 countries during the week leading up to Valentine's Day, National Marriage Week USA -- February 7 to 14 -- announces new national initiatives to show marriage benefits personal and national economic stability and for raising more well adjusted children. National Marriage Week USA provides a new clearinghouse of marriage classes and conferences all around the country to help couples strengthen their own marriage, or to reach out and help others.
"Marriage breakdown costs taxpayers at least $112 billion a year. Research shows an alarming drop in the marriage rate from 79 percent of all adults married in 1970 to 57 percent today. Plus 40 percent of all American babies are now born outside of marriage. Combined with our 50 percent divorce rate, family breakdown is costly to the nation." said businessman Chuck Stetson, CEO of National Marriage Week USA, citing research from the esteemed Institute for American Values. "In these days of economic hardship, policy leaders and individual Americans need to get serious about our efforts to strengthen marriage." "Marriage pays," says National Marriage Week USA executive director Sheila Weber. "Research shows that marriage makes people happier, live longer, and build more economic security. Children with married parents perform better in school, have less trouble with the law, less teen pregnancy and fewer issues with addiction."
"Most folks don't know where to go to get the help they need," said Weber. "We've created a list of hundreds of classes and conferences all around the country. Folks can locate an event near them by logging on to www.NationalMarriageWeekUSA.org."
Peter Sprigg, a Maryland Resident and senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, asks in The Baltimore Sun, “do children matter in Maryland?”:
That is the question that will be at stake in 2011, when the Maryland legislature considers radically changing the definition of our most fundamental social institution — marriage.
The question of whether Maryland should place its highest stamp of official government affirmation on sexual unions between two men or two women actually has little to do with debates over "sexual orientation" and even less to do with bromides about "equality."
… Marriage is a public institution because it serves two public purposes: bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race and keeping together a man and woman to raise to maturity the children produced by their union.
The existence of future generations of children is fundamental to the survival of any society. The quality of their nurture is directly related to the quality of life in that society. Bonding the man and woman whose sexual union produces a child to one another and to that child is by far the most efficient way of ensuring that nurture. [Continue reading]
Good news from the Washington Times:
Indiana University at South Bend will resume its use of Chick-fil-A’s campus services on Wednesday after suspending the restaurant chain over its plans to provide free lunches for a Pennsylvania conference on traditional marriage.
The restaurant’s services on IUSB’s campus have featured Chick-fil-A meals with the famous chicken sandwiches and milkshakes every Wednesday at two dining locations: the Courtside Cafe and the Grille.
But the restaurant chain, known nationally as a family-held Christian business that does not open on Sundays, was barred late last month at the demand of Campus Ally Network, a pro-gay campus group.
“Last week, Chancellor [Una Mae] Reck ordered a review of the suspension. The review was completed today, and based on a more complete understanding of the facts, Chancellor Reck ordered the end of the suspension. At this time, Chick-fil-A is a full-service food provider for IU South Bend with no restrictions,” said Ken Bairl, IUSB’s director of communications and marketing in a written statement.
Hopefully we can now all go back to enjoying our "chikin" again!
Nearly two-thirds of Iowa House Reps are in favor of allowing Iowans to vote on marriage:
Three House Democrats sided with Republicans to support a resolution to begin the Iowa constitutional amendment process to prohibit same sex marriage.
“I represent a conservative district in the state. There’s no question about that. Sometimes when I represent my district I have to differ from other members of my caucus that come from more liberal parts of the state,” said Rep. Kurt Swaim, D-Bloomfield who voted in favor of the resolution.
In addition to Swaim, Democrats Dan Muhlbauer of Manilla and Brian Quirk of New Hampton voted with Republicans for the resolution. [Des Moines Register]
The resolution will now go to the Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Michael Gronstal has made it clear he would rather lose his seat than allow Iowans to have a say on marriage.
The Des Moines Register has a story and video up on its website recapping remarks that were made by Iowa citizens at Monday’s public hearing on the House floor over the issue of allowing marriage to be decided by a popular vote in that state.
Here are a couple of those comments, transcribed from the video provided by the Register:
Karen Mogenhan, a Montrose Resident: “When gay marriage rights clash into religious rights, the courts lean towards the former. As [this] shows, this issue is bigger than two people who love each other and want to express that love, and who receive the benefits of legally-sanctioned marriage. It will filter into all aspects of our lives, school, business, medicine, religious-based groups’ activities and church. At what point do I say, ‘Enough, it is my rights that are under siege?’ In a battle of religious rights with gay marriage rights, it is the rights of a free society that will ultimately pay the price.”
Jen Green: “Several of you may have to choose between party loyalty and your personal beliefs, please vote to pass [the bill], and take the first step to allowing Iowans our [given] right to vote on a marriage amendment. We will thank you for it.”
Dean Genth speaking for One Iowa (which opposes allowing the issue to go to a popular vote) had the most over the top comments:
“To give you some perspective, it would be less harmful to me if you just jumped me in a dark alley and beat me up. It would be less hurtful to me if you would just spray-paint the word ‘f*****’ on my garage door. Nothing you could do to me physically would be more hurtful to me than the action you are proposing to take.”
From the Ruth Institute: “Up on our podcast page is a two-part interview with Bill Duncan; Dr Morse asks him to bring us up to speed on DOMA and the amicus brief he and NOM recently filed in that case." Listen here: [
He tells Laura Ingraham he's sticking with the "truce" idea.
I wonder how that will play in Iowa?
