Tag Archive for: Gay Marriage

American Support For Same-Sex Relations Sees Biggest Decline Ever Recorded

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Support for same-sex relations has plummeted among Americans over the past year, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.

Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs poll found that 64% of Americans believe same-sex relations are acceptable in 2023, compared to 71% in 2022. The 7-point drop in views of gay and lesbian relations represents the steepest decline of all polled social issues. Moral acceptance of same-sex relations has fallen to its lowest level since 2019, a year in which 63% of respondents said they found gay relationships “morally acceptable.” 

Still, the poll shows that same-sex relations are still viewed much more favorably than in past decades. In 2012, 54% of Americans found gay and lesbian relationships acceptable. In 2002, 38% of Americans found them acceptable. Likewise, a record-high 71% of Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a June 5 Gallup poll.

The backslide in acceptance same-sex relations comes mainly from Republicans, according to Gallup. Only 41% of Republicans reported finding same-sex relations morally acceptable, a sharp drop from the record-high of 56% in 2022. The 41% figure represents the lowest level of support same-sex for relations in nearly a decade. In 2014, 39% of Republicans found gay and lesbian relationships “morally acceptable,” according to the poll.

Support for gay relationships among Democrats slightly declined from 85% in 2022 to 79% in 2023. Independents saw a slight uptick, with support increasing from 72% to 73%.

The decline of same-sex relationship acceptance comes amid a broader backlash against the LGBT movement over the past year, with many Republican state legislatures moving to ban sex changes for children and explicit books featuring gay sex from school libraries. Conservatives expressed outrage against Bud Light and Target over the alleged promotion of transgender ideology, which has resulted in declining sales and stock prices for each entity, respectively.

Some have questioned if the political packaging of homosexuals with gender ideologues would result in a backlash against the gay and lesbian community.

“But when you examine the other issues at stake — public schools teaching the concepts of queer and gender theory to kindergartners on up, sex changes for children before puberty, the housing of biological males with women in prisons and rape shelters, and biological males competing with women in sports — you realize we are far beyond what the gay rights movement once stood for. It’s these initiatives from the far left that are new; and the backlash is quite obviously a reaction to the capture of the gay rights movement by queer social justice activists,” gay rights activist and public intellectual Andrew Sullivan wrote in a May blog post.

AUTHOR

COREY WALKER

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Uprising: Families Clash With Schools Over LGBTQ Propaganda

Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Transgender Ideology: POLL

Fox News Encourages Employees To Read ‘Gay Erotica,’ Support Pro-Child Castration Groups, In Leaked Docs

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

U.S. Muslim Polygamy larger problem than Same-Sex Marriage

/in , , , /by

NPR.org published an article titled “Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy” on May 27, 2008 authored by Barbara Bradley Hagerty. The report states in part: No one knows how many Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families. But according to academics researching the issue, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

Quran 4:3 states:

“Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess.”

Polygamy is just one of many Islamic tenets sanctioned by Sharia law that are contrary to American laws.   An in depth report on Sharia law around the world is posted here at Floridafamily.org.

It has been more than seven years since the NPR article was published. There has been a significant increase in the number of Muslim immigrants to the United States as well as Muslims granted asylum from Islamist countries since May 27, 2008.

National Review published an article earlier this year titled: The Troubling Math of Muslim Migration.  The article reports in part:

In 1992, 41 percent of new permanent residents in the United States — green-card holders — hailed from the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East and North Africa, or sub-Saharan Africa, according to the Pew Research Center. A decade later, the percentage was 53 percent. Over that same period, predictably, the number of Muslim immigrants coming to the United States annually has doubled, from 50,000 to approximately 100,000 each year. In 1992, only 5 percent of Muslim immigrants came from sub-Saharan Africa; 20 years later, it was 16 percent. Of the 2.75 million Muslims in the United States in 2011, 1.7 million were legal permanent residents.

There is no official estimate of Muslims in the U.S.; religious affiliation is not tracked by the Census. However, Pew’s estimate of 2.75 million seems to be on the lower end. The Council on American-Islamic Relations says there are approximately 7 million Muslims in the country.

Therefore, the number of Muslims “quietly engaging in Polygamy in the United States” could be 100,000 to 200,000 or more today. 100,000 to 200,000 Muslims represent a small portion of the Islamic community that are polygamists. However, the significance of this number is that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in America that follow tenets of Sharia law which are inconsistent with American laws.   Some reports indicate that most Muslims worldwide do not practice polygamy because of financial restraints. This would indicate that there are far more Muslims in America that practice the other tenets of Sharia law.

There are likely many more Muslims practicing polygamy in America than there are gay marriages.  Pew Research reported in June 2015 “How many same-sex married couples in the U.S.? Maybe 170,000.” 

Muslims in America who practice tenets of Sharia law which are antithetical to the United States Constitution threaten to change public policy in America. American companies bidding for Muslim consumers will be tempted, asked and pressured to change their policies to be Sharia compliant. A large portion of Sharia law has to do with personal conduct and consumer behavior.

Pope Francis: Rejecting Gay Marriage Is ‘Human Right’

/in , , , , /by

Sky News U.S. Team reports:

Government officials have the “human right” to refuse their duties, including the issuing of same-sex marriage licences, if they feel it violates their conscience, the Pope says.

The pontiff made the comment to reporters on his flight back to Rome as he reflected on his 10-day trip to Cuba and the US.

Asked specifically about Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed for refusing to issue gay marriage licences, Pope Francis said he did not know the details of her case, but he upheld conscience objection as a human right.

He said: “It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.”

Kim Davis greets supporters after her release from jail

Kim Davis’ case has sparked both outrage and support

Ms Davis was thrust into the spotlight for her refusal to grant marriage licences to any couples – gay or straight – in the wake of the US Supreme Court ruling in June that effectively legalised same-sex marriage.

The 49-year-old has cited her religious beliefs in refusing the requests, sparking a heavy mix of both outrage and support.

Video: The Pope Holds Mass In Philadelphia

Francis said he supported individuals, including those working for the government, who refuse to abide by some laws.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Vatican Spokesman Confirms Kim Davis Met Pope Francis

Obama: Gay Rights MORE Important Than Religious Freedom

Prosecuted Florist: ‘This Isn’t Real to Me’

And now there are three: Two judges join Kim Davis’ stand against gay marriage

/in , , , /by
kim davis

County Clerk Kim Davis mugshot.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk who has repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples has now been joined by two judges using different arguments.

Judge Vance Day from Marion County, Oregon when a federal court ruling in May 2014 made same-sex marriage legal in Oregon, instructed his staff to refer same-sex couples looking to marry to other judges. Judge Day no longer does marriages.

Jeffrey M. Atherton from Hamilton County, Tennessee refused to divorce of a straight couple who wanted to split, claiming straying allegiances and irreconcilable differences. According to The Washington Post Judge Atherton stated, “The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges … affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee. This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’ s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”

Presidential candidate and former governor, Mike Huckabee recently tweeted: “Kim Davis In Federal Custody Removes All Doubts About The Criminalization Of Christianity In This Country.”

Image-1Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz said of Davis’ sentencing, “Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny.” He called on “every believer, every constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis.”

Jailed Kentucky clerk Davis argues from her jail cell that marriage licenses issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and ‘not worth the paper they are written on’ because she didn’t signed off on them, her lawyer said.

Has the Religious Freedom Revolution begun?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Just Made a Surprise Statement About Kim Davis That’ll Make Many People Furious

Mike Huckabee Brings up the One Thing About Kim Davis No One’s Talking About, but Should Be

Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages, Cites First Amendment Right to Religious Freedom

$200,000 Offer Ends ‘Gay’ Democrat’s Child-Sex Charges

Finland Moves to Repeal Gay Marriage Law

/in , , , /by

With a new pro-family government elected this year, the “gay marriage” battle is gearing up across Finland again with more energy and momentum than ever, using Finnish language versions of MassResistance materials to educate voters.

New Finnish version of MassResistance booklet (read it here), and original version (read it here).

Late last year, as we reported, the Finnish Parliament narrowly passed a “gay marriage” law. As we’ve seen in so many other places, proponents used an aggressive, undemocratic strategy that allowed no parliamentary debate, discussion, or amendments to push the bill through its final stages. Within a week, over 12,000 people had resigned from the Finnish Lutheran Church over its Bishop’s pro-gay marriage remarks.

But last April’s nationwide elections changed the political landscape. A new Parliament was elected.  The top people in government are openly pro-traditional marriage. As a result, the Finnish pro-family movement has ignited across the country to get the bill repealed. Over 70,000 people have already signed a special petition to get it before the Parliament. And to counter the “gay” propaganda, they are out educating the population and the political leaders about the consequences of “gay marriage” for society.


The Finnish pro-family movement is gathering thousands of signatures to force Parliament to re-visit the “gay marriage” law.

MassResistance materials

MassResistance materials are being used extensively. Last month Finnish activists finished creating a Finnish-language version of our booklet “What same-sex ‘marriage’ has done to Massachusetts.”  It is being distributed across the country and to the nation’s political leaders.  Our video, “What gay ‘marriage’ did to Massachusetts” is being shown on national TV translated into Finnish, Swedish, and Estonian.

MassResistance same-sex marriage VIDEO modified for Finland
Posted on Finnish TV site and broadcast on Finnish national TV. Versions in Finnish, Swedish, and Estonian.

During July, one of the coalition leaders emailed us on their progress:

We are so thankful what you have been doing to support us in this battle. Homoseksual lobby is claiming that this issue is settled, but it is not over, for we have a very good chance to defeat them.

Now your booklet is finally translated into Finnish language and is ready for the distribution. We are going to hand it out free of charge all over this country. We’ve also added a few additional pages in the beginning and at the end of this publication to apply your message specifically to our setting here.

We are now working to inform our Prime Minister, his government and the Parliament as well as all church leaders and all leaders, what is really involved in this same-sex marriage. We are mailing your booklet to all of them and after that, all over Finland so much as possible, to wake up the whole nation.  I will let you know how our leaders respond to this campaign. Your publication will support also a new nation wide effort by www.aitoavioliitto.fi association to stop the same-sex marriage legislation.

People have been very much touched by your video, which is in three TV7 Channels – In Finnish language, Swedish and Estonian. It has already stirred up large multitude and we believe that the additional impact will come over this whole nation.

They are clearly gaining momentum.

Breath of fresh air. New Finnish Prime Minister Juha Sipila is not afraid to say he supports traditional marriage. But will he act on it?

Latest report from the front

Just this morning we received this updated report from the Finnish pro-family leader. (Note his comment that the Minister of Justice is not cooperating with enforcement of the “gay marriage” law. We need more of that spirit here in the US!)

Yes, set up is quite favorable for our cause.

(1) The Prime minister Juha Sipilä, the Foreign minister Timo Soini, the Minister of Justice Jari Lindström and several others are – as far as their personal opinion is concerned – for the traditional marriage standing with us.  How forcefully they are willing to persuade their parties to stand with them – that is one of the questions now!

(2) The Minister of Justice, Jari Lindström has set up his mind not to carry on – not to workout – not to confirm legislation concerning the same-sex marriage. Finnish media is quite mad with him.

(3) People defending the traditional marriage between one woman and one man – they are campaigning to defeat the same-sex marriage – foolish voting done in the parliament. Up to this date well over 70.000 have rallied behind us in this aitoavioliitto.fi campaign.

However, according to statistics there are in Finland about 3.000.000 who personally are for the traditional marriage, but most of them think – it does not matter what happens – it does not affect me. They do not understand how serious it is to legislate the same-sex marriage. Your video and booklet is wonderfully stirring up sleeping ones. My personal target is especially the men and women in high position, those who do have the authority to make the final decision concerning this matter.

(4) Our greatest obstacle is the media! Media is by and large for the homosexual lobby. Media is ‘brain washing’ multitudes with false information. The whole nation and political leaders have been programmed by the media – unfortunately!

(5) The second problem is our situation in Finland. We are part of the European Union and our previous governments have shoveled most of the money to outsiders, especially to Greece. Financial problems, unemployment and various kinds of difficulties are heavily resting upon our ministers and they do not have time to put themselves to see what we say.

However, due to this aitoavioliitto.fi campaign – our parliament has to reconsider what we say. They are bound to take it again to the legislative committee and for general voting in the parliament.

Consequently, the government ministers, the members of our parliament, the media – these are key factors to determine what happens. The final result depends on what they do.

All over Finland there is a large prayer campaign going on to stop and to defeat the homosexual movement. Homosexual lobby is rallying little children to march with them in Pride Parades waving the rainbow flags. We trust that the sensible part of our population could wake up and get upset of that ‘sexual force feeding’!

I will let you know what happens when the parliament is reconsidering our aitoavioliitto.fi demand. You could see the campaign webpage www.aitoavioliitto.fi and my personal campaign page www.suomijeesukselle.fi  Your materials, links to see them and to read them are posted in my campaign webpage www.suomijeesukselle.fi  Thank you for standing together with us and providing your materials to support us in this worldwide battle to uphold traditional & Christian family values.

The petition has until September to collect names. Given the change in government after the recent election — and the momentum across the country to reverse the “gay marriage” law forced on citizens — it’s possible that the challenge could be taken up in Parliament this fall. Or maybe sooner?

In any case, it will be a big battle!  We’ll keep you informed.

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

/in , , , , , /by

animals versus human babyThree decades after the ‘Moral Majority’ revolution, after fighting numerous battles for our culture, we can claim victory on, well … hardly anything.

The world is going mad. And it’s not just political madness. It’s madness everywhere.

  • Are we really selling aborted baby body parts? It’s madness.
  • Are we really joining two people of the same sex and calling it marriage? That’s madness, too.
  • Are we really extending the power to get a nuclear bomb to Iran, a nation that has chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel?” That’s complete madness.

Oh, there’s more madness. Much more.

Law-abiding citizens are being turned into lawbreakers for such things as refusing to sell wedding cakes to homosexual couples – while those who were once lawbreakers are now law-abiding citizens, like those who smoke pot in Colorado, Oregon, Alaska and Washington.

It’s still against federal law to smoke weed. Right? But who cares?

And how about this madness: There’s world outrage over a hunter’s killing of a lion in Zimbabwe, but hardly any public outrage over hundreds of Christians being beheaded in the Middle East and Africa by Islamists.

There’s more.

A Florida man was told by a Pinellas County air quality inspector to keep his barbecue smoke in his yard. What? This should make Linda Blair’s head spin all over again.

A New York restaurant owner was fined $5,000 because he used the word “waitress” in an employment ad. An Indian-restaurant owner also was fined $5,000 in New York for trying to hire an Indian waiter.

Maddening, I tell you.

All right, I need to stop or I’ll never get to my point.

I’ve been in the movement of defending America’s traditional, moral and biblical heritage for more than 30 years, first as the editor of Dr. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority Report in 1983, then as president of Christian Action Network since 1990.

The battles back in the day seem small, compared to today’s struggles.

We were fighting abortion and court decisions to kick God and prayer out of the public schools, as well as combatting the relentless chants of feminists, homosexuals and secularists to distort, pervert and destroy the laws of nature and nature’s God.

Three decades later we can claim victory on, well … hardly anything.

Every once in a while we would celebrate a win, such as passing the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman in federal eyes, or the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexuals openly serving in the military, or the Religious Restoration Act, which ensured that religious freedoms were protected from federal overreach.

And we did wage a successful campaign against the National Endowment for the Arts, which was funding some of the most blasphemous, sadomasochistic and sexually gruesome art imaginable.

(My “favorite” was the NEA’s funding of an art project called “Testicle Stretch with the Possibility of a Crushed Face.” It featured a man lying prone on a platform, a rope tied to his testicles that led to a pulley supporting heavy metal weights. If his testicles gave out, his face would theoretically get crushed, giving the art project its brutal and insane name.)

While a couple of these victories remain, the courts, Congress, presidents or federal administrators have gutted most of them.

Now we find ourselves fighting battles that make you wonder whether we are still living in America. It’s as if we’ve been conquered but refuse to admit it.

No army ever came. No outside soldiers ever took over the White House. The American flag still flies. And we still sing the National Anthem at baseball games.

But while the White House lights up in gay rainbow colors in celebration of legalized homosexual marriage, there are no red, white and blue lights on the White House on the fourth of July.

And in Reno, Nev., City Hall replaces the American flag with a gay rainbow flag. Oops, they admitted afterward, they meant to fly the gay flag ALONGSIDE the American flag.

The fact that the head of the DNC can’t explain the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist should tell us a lot.

The president of the United States ignores the laws. The U.S. Supreme Court ignores the Constitution. And Congress, well that’s easy: They ignore the people.

The IRS is using its agents to punish conservatives. If you support anything that America once stood for, you are a hatemonger. If you claim any of your beliefs are grounded in the Bible, you are immediately dismissed as a flat-earth-society lunatic.

Then there’s this particularly harrowing story out of Wisconsin, reported in the National Review:

(Illustration: Roman Genn)

In an article titled, “They came with a battering ram,” the publication exposed how certain Wisconsin officials raided the homes of innocent Americans simply because they publicly supported Gov. Scott Walker’s re-election bid and his “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill.”

Here’s just a small excerpt from this rather frightening story. It’s the story of “Anne” and the police invasion of her home:

Someone was pounding at her front door. It was early in the morning – very early – and it was the kind of heavy pounding that meant someone was either fleeing from – or bringing – trouble. “It was so hard. I’d never heard anything like it. I thought someone was dying outside.”

She ran to the door, opened it, and then chaos. “People came pouring in. For a second I thought it was a home invasion. It was terrifying. They were yelling and running, into every room in the house. One of the men was in my face, yelling at me over and over and over.”

It was indeed a home invasion, but the people who were pouring in were Wisconsin law-enforcement officers. Armed, uniformed police swarmed into the house. Plainclothes investigators cornered her and her newly awakened family. Soon, state officials were seizing the family’s personal property, including each person’s computer and smartphone, filled with the most intimate family information.

When you get a chance, read this remarkable and disturbing article, written by David French. It will send shivers down your spine and make your hair stand on end.

Anne was told by police not to call her lawyer and not to tell anyone about the raid – not her mother, her father nor her closest friends.

She was left with a single question: “Is this America?”

Which brings me to this question: As Iranian citizens chant “Death to America”… are they too late?

RELATED ARTICLE: 405,000 people, 104 bishops sign petition to Pope Francis asking for ‘clarification’ on marriage

COUNTDOWN: Four Days Left to File for SCOTUS Marriage Re-hearing

/in , , /by

We have rarely seen anything as disgraceful as this.

There are just five days to go before the July 21 deadline to file for a re-hearing before the US Supreme Court on its recent 5-4 “same-sex marriage” ruling. But chances are bleak that this crucial filing will be done. The cave-in by the GOP has spread to major pro-family organizations.

July 10 meeting in DeWine’s office. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine (in red tie) watches Constitutional Law Professor David Forte (far left) discuss the Motion for Recusal filed in April and a Motion for a Re-hearing to be filed immediately. Seated to DeWine’s left is Solicitor General Eric Murphy. Nearly 50 Ohio pro-family activists, citizens, and pastors were also in the room.

As we described in our report last week, the US Supreme Court “same-sex marriage” fight is not completely over. According to the Court’s published rules, within 25 days of a ruling, a party can ask the Court for a “rehearing” if there are pertinent issues meriting an appeal. The issue of “merit” here is that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg – both of whom ruled for “same-sex marriage” — were clearly required by federal law to recuse themselves from this case. The 25-day period to file for a re-hearing expires on Tuesday, July 21.

It seemed like a simple and obvious step for our side to take, especially given the outrageous nature of the ruling. So a few days after the June 26 ruling, national pro-family activist Janet Porter called together a few dozen of the top pro-family groups (including MassResistance), activists, and some legal scholars to help get it moving. But we certainly didn’t anticipate this much opposition to this from our “friends”.

Of the four state AGs who are eligible to file the motion (from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee) it was decided for various reasons focus on Mike DeWine of Ohio. Several in the group have connections to him.

Pro-family citizens meet with Ohio AG Mike DeWine

DeWine is a Republican with long connections to pro-family people in Ohio. Janet Porter and several in the group are Ohio residents – some of them know DeWine personally. They were able to arrange a meeting last Friday, July 10, in DeWine’s office, to ask him to file for a re-hearing.

Even with short notice, nearly 50 people showed up for the meeting in DeWine’s Columbus office. They included Janet Porter, Constitutional Law Professor David Forte of Cleveland State University, several Ohio activists, and a large group of pastors. Alongside DeWine was the Ohio Solicitor General, Eric Murphy.

Prof. Forte started the meeting by going over the Motion for Recusal filed on April 27 (the day before the Court hearing) and outlining the legal issues for re-hearing the case. DeWine responded by saying he would not be filing for a re-hearing, then opened up the floor for questions and statements from others.

Pro-family activist and Ohio resident Coach Dave Daubenmire attended the meeting. Here’s his account of what happened.

As soon as Prof. Forte was done presenting, Michael DeWine said he had no intentions of re-filing. He said that there’s no chance of winning; it takes 5 justices to agree to do it. He doesn’t want to give false hope to people that this might be reversed. And it’s now time to direct our focus to protecting religious liberty, he said.

The meeting lasted about an hour and 45 minutes. We had thought we were going to just get 15 minutes. He took every question. Some great points were made. One gentleman asked him, “What about his duty to protect children? Because of this ruling, it’s now going to be taught to our children in schools. It’s going to be mandated. And you have an obligation to protect the children.” Another pastor stood up and said, “This is your Moses moment. The Lord has been preparing you. And you’re an elected official. You represent the will of the people who voted on this issue. And the Supreme Court is totally out of bounds and we want you to appeal it on our behalf. ” Then DeWine went through that whole thing again about why he wasn’t going to file it.

And I told him, “Listen, Attorney General DeWine, I was a football coach for 30 years. I didn’t just play the games I thought we would win. We had to play every game on our schedule. And this game’s not over. We have our legal right to an appeal. And on behalf of the concerned Christians and citizens of Ohio we want you to appeal.” This went on for about an hour and 30 minutes. Everybody who had a question and raised their hand, he listened to the question. He didn’t always answer or respond, but he listened.

And then the meeting was done. At the end of the meeting he didn’t say that he wouldn’t do it, but he didn’t say that he would, either. He promised us that he’d read David Forte’s brief and that he would take it under consideration.

How does DeWine know that somebody’s heart [on the Supreme Court] won’t be changed? We need to at least get them on record about this lack of recusal. The people feel robbed.

One attendee told us this:

I believe that DeWine wants to be Governor. And I believe the Republican Party wants the issue to go away, and that he doesn’t want to cross the party bosses. That’s what I think really happened. But who do you serve? I think he serves the [establishment] Republicans and not the citizens of Ohio.

DeWine reacts to flood of emails & calls (from everywhere)

Over the last week, since MassResistance and others have publicized this, DeWine’s office has his office has received a flood of calls and emails from Ohio, across the country, and even foreign countries. (We know that from people who’ve also contacted us.)

It doesn’t appear that the July 10 meeting moved DeWine much. And his “reasons” for not filing are even weaker than before. Here’s a response DeWine’s office emailed to an activist in Maryland on Tuesday, July 14.

Dear Mr. xxxx:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage.

I defended Ohio’s Constitution and statutes in this area at the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

As you know, the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court rejected our argument that the definition of marriage should be left to the States and the people.  Before the Court issued its decision, a suggestion for recusal was filed by amicus parties and the individual Justices had the duty to consider their impartiality.  The Justices did not recuse themselves.  Under Supreme Court rules (and specifically Supreme Court Rule 44.1), motions for reconsideration are to be denied unless they have the vote of at least five Justices.

Again, thank you for contacting my office.  If we can ever be of assistance to you in the future, please feel free to contact us.

Very respectfully yours,

MIKE DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General

Absurd reasoning by DeWine

DeWine’s reasoning in the above email is very disturbing.  (1) He refers to a “suggestion for recusal,” i.e., the Motion for Recusal. But that was not a formal part of the process because it was filed by an outside party – and was most likely ignored by the Justices. And it was submitted the day before the Aril 28 Supreme Court hearing. (2) The fact that a vote to accept a hearing requires five justices not a legitimate reason not to file for a re-hearing. Upon seeing the new evidence, one or more of the majority could change.

Moreover, DeWine’s refusal to file for an appeal arguably constitutes malpractice. There is a universally accepted requirement that a lawyer must zealously fight for his client’s interests, not fold up his tent when it’s inconvenient or unpleasant. The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct state, “As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system.” This is replicated in just about every other Bar Association code of ethics – even using the word “zealously”. The fact that in 2004 62% of the voters in Ohio passed the state’s Marriage Amendment makes DeWine’s inaction even more outrageous.

What about the other three states eligible to file for a re-hearing?

The Supreme Court case, Obergefell v Hodges, originated in Ohio, but was also a consolidation of cases in Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky – the other states in the Sixth Circuit. Thus, the Attorneys General of all four states have standing to act.

Janet Porter’s ad-hoc pro-family activist committee had connections to DeWine, but unfortunately none of them had effective  political connections to any of the other AGs.

We had assumed that that the larger national pro-family groups would also use their considerable influence to push this. We certainly made this known to them. But they all pretty much backed away. One national leader told Janet that this was a “waste of time.” What about the National Organization for Marriage? Not a word. We could name so many others. (There’s certainly a lot of fundraising going on over this ruling.) Or even the Federalist Society, which had the inside track to the legal process in this case?

Here’s what everyone can do now

CALL, EMAIL, TWITTER, or even FAX these AGs.  They need to hear from more people than they’ve ever heard from before:

Demand that they file a “Motion for Rehearing” in the Supreme Court marriage case by next Tuesday, July 21st. The Court must consider the information about how Justices Kagan Ginsburg violated federal law by officiating homosexual “weddings” before the ruling, and not recusing themselves from this case.

OHIO Attorney General Mike DeWine (Republican)
Phone: 800-282-0515
Email: mary.mertz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov  (his assistant)
Twitter: @OhioAG

TENNESSEE Attorney General Herbert Slatery  (Repubican)
Phone 615-741-3491
Fax 615-741-2009
Twitter: @TNattygen  [https://twitter.com/tnattygen]
Chief of Staff: Leigh Ann Apple Jones

MICHIGAN Attorney General Bill Schuette (Republican)
Phone 517-373-1110
Fax 517-373-3042
Email: miag@michigan.gov

KENTUCKY Attorney General Jack Conway (Democrat)
Phone 502-696-5300
Fax  502-564-2894
Email: web site contact page

Why filing this motion for a re-hearing is very important

We’ll repeat what we said earlier. Even if it’s not ultimately 100% successful this is extremely important:

First, it will “officially” bring the issue of Kagan’s and Ginsburg’s failure to recuse themselves (in violation of federal law) into the public spotlight. Right now, it’s relatively buried in ignored motions and various news articles in some conservative media.  And it will reinforce understanding of the overall illegal nature of this ruling.

Second, it spotlights the overall illegitimacy of today’s Supreme Court, its overtly un-Constitutional approach to shaping our laws, and its illegal power grabs far and beyond what was intended by the Founders.

If this opportunity is lost, it will be a terrible indictment to this movement. If only the homosexual movement would give up this easily.

SCOTUS Re-trial on Marriage Issue? It’s Possible if GOP doesn’t Cave In…

/in , , , /by

It’s not completely over yet. But a group of treacherous and cowardly Republican politicians are standing in the way. A new fight is on, and everyone’s help is needed.

Prominent pro-family figures, some GOP presidential candidates, and hundreds across the country are pressing Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to formally file for an appeal hearing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 “gay marriage” ruling handed down on June 26.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg performs a same-sex “marriage” on August 31, 2013.

She told the Washington Post, “I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship.” [Fox News photo]

According to the Court’s published rules, within 25 days of a ruling a party can ask the Court for a “rehearing” of a case on pertinent issues that would merit an appeal. The issue of “merit” here is that Justices Kagan and Ginsburg – both of whom ruled “for” same-sex marriage — were clearly required by Federal law to recuse themselves from this case.

Kagan and Ginsburg’s actions and statements mandate recusal

The right of impartial court proceedings is the very basis of the entire American system of justice – from the lowest court to the Supreme Court.  Thus, federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

During the year prior to the Supreme Court case, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburgand Elena Kagan publicly performed same-sex “weddings.” At one such event, Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflected “the genius of our Constitution.” Ginsburg also told Bloomberg Business News that she thought that  Americans were ready for gay marriage.

Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” goes back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.

Supreme Court Justices are usually scrupulous in avoiding the appearance of impropriety. They regularly recuse themselves from cases based on relatively mundane issues, such as comments they’ve previously made, involvement by relatives in peripheral issues, and past employment. Kagan has recused herself from several cases involving the government because she served as Solicitor General. But this case clearly is very emotionally connected to the worldview of Kagan and Ginsburg.

Earlier attempts to bring up recusal – ignored by our side’s legal team

This case, Obergefell v Hodges, originated in Ohio, but is also a consolidation of cases in Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky – the other states in the Sixth Circuit. Thus, all four states have standing to act.

The actions of Kagan and Ginsburg immediately raised the ire of the pro-family movement. In the months preceding the April 28 hearing of the case before the Court, numerous groups tried desperately to bring up the obvious need for their recusal.

But the legal team preparing to argue the case and the attorneys general for the four states involved all adamantly refused to take any action on it. On behalf of several groups, constitutional attorney Andy Schlafly even drew up a Motion for Recusal that the legal team or the attorneys general could use. But they all ignored it.

We recall speaking with a well-known legal writer connected to the case about it in March. He made it clear that they were all afraid – afraid of antagonizing the Justices, afraid of looking unprofessional, afraid of the backlash. When pressed, he gave contrived reasons why they shouldn’t even try it, and dropped the subject.

Finally, the day before the April 28 Supreme Court hearing, the Foundation for Moral Law filed its own Motion for Recusal of Ginsburg and Kagan which laid out the issue in detail. It was followed by another Motion for Recusal filed by pro-family activist Dr. Steven Hotze.

Procedurally, it’s practically unheard of for someone not officially connected with the case to file such a motion. And although apparently the documents were eventually processed, it’s not known whether the other Justices are even now fully aware of Kagan and Ginsburg’s actions.

The Court’s rules for filing a motion for a re-hearing

The Court’s “same-sex marriage” ruling was announced on June 26. There is a 25-day window for further action (ending on July 21), if our side choses to file.

In a situation where important facts were not brought up and a re-hearing of a case is merited, the Supreme Court provides a method for it. Rule 44 of the “Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States” reads:

Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.

… The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay.

… A petition for rehear­ing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.

A further discussion of Rule 44 can be found HERE. The main purpose of the rule is to bring up pertinent issues that the Court may not have considered in the case. It is not often utilized, and to our knowledge it has never been used for a recusal issue. But recusal is definitely a preeminent issue of this case.

Focus is on Ohio Attorney General to file for re-hearing

It immediately became clear in the four states involved with this case, though dominated by Republicans, the officials had little interest in pursuing this further, despite the gross injustice of the case and the general outrage among millions over it.

So a few days after the ruling, national pro-family activist Janet Porter called together a few dozen of the top pro-family groups and activists (including MassResistance) to get it started.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine appeared to be the most obvious choice to file it. He can act without permission of the Governor, he has a pro-family background, and several members of Janet’s group know him personally and could likely meet with him. A former US Senator, DeWine lost his seat in 2007 after supporting some oppressive pro-gay legislation, angering his conservative base. He apparently got the message. It’s widely rumored that he’s preparing to run for Governor.

On May 1, Janet’s group contacted DeWine. At least one of them spoke to him by phone. The Foundation for Moral Law emailed him a letter outlining the situation in detail. Governor Mike Huckabee sent him an email urging him to file the appeal as did several others. We were told that Rick Santorum also called him.

Fight back against cowardliness – put on the pressure!

Unfortunately, DeWine has reacted initially with some hostility. Despite the universal outrage among his base about the “same-sex marriage” ruling, he seems most interested in distancing himself from any further confrontation. When asked about a possible re-hearing by the press, his spokesman bluntly told the Columbus Dispatch “We do not plan on filing a motion.” And he may have more personal concerns. We’ve been told that some key players in the GOP are homosexual, and he doesn’t want to ruffle any more feathers on this issue. He clearly needs to be more interested about what’s best for the country.

Everyone needs to get involved. Take five minutes.
PLEASE CONTACT DeWine’s office!
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515
Email: mary.mertz@ohioattorneygeneral.gov  (his assistant)

Tell him: “File the motion for a Supreme Court re-hearing!”
Let him know that if he capitulates on “gay marriage” he can expect your opposition in any political race he runs in again.

Please tweet this out on your Twitter account (copy and paste):
@OhioAG please file a Motion for Rehearing Obergefell v. Hodges immediately! #nullifySCOTUS http://hrefshare.com/8b3cd

Personal meeting with DeWine on Friday. On Friday, July 10, a group of Ohio activists is meeting with DeWine personally. We suspect that he will be read the riot act. Perhaps DeWine does not realize how much of an emotional issue this is to his conservative base. Perhaps he does not remember that in 2004 the Ohio Marriage Amendment passed by 62%, despite being vastly outspent by the other side. Does he want to be another Mike Pence (the Republican governor of Indiana who capitulated on the religious freedom bill, and likely will never get elected again)? We’re sure much of that will be brought up.

As bad as DeWine seems, it’s not looking too good in the other states. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan has issued an immediate statement of capitulation and full compliance, instructing state officials to amend the marriage license for use by county clerks. He’s also said he’ll veto any “religious freedom” legislation unless it includes adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the state civil rights law. (And this is from our “friends”!)

We have until Tuesday, July 21. We’re also looking at a second try with officials in Tennessee and Kentucky.

Why is this important?

Given the super-charged political nature of this particular Supreme Court ruling and the general arrogance of the majority of the Court regarding their power to vastly re-define the Constitution, the likelihood of this ruling being reversed in a re-hearing is not great. But filing this motion for a re-hearing is still very important.

First, it will “officially” bring the issue of Kagan’s and Ginsburg’s failure to recuse themselves (in violation of federal law) into the public spotlight. Right now, it’s relatively buried in motions and various news articles.  And it will reinforce understanding of the overall illegal nature of this ruling.

Second, it spotlights the overall illegitimacy of today’s Supreme Court, its overtly un-Constitutional approach to shaping our laws, and its illegal power grabs far and beyond what was intended by the Founders.

Ultimately, this ruling – like the abortion ruling in 1973 and so many others – must be conscientiously ignored, dishonored, and violated by all good Americans. It starts with this.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of John Becker, 30, of Silver Spring, Md., waves a rainbow flag in support of gay marriage outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Photo by Jacquelyn Martin/The Associated Press.

UH-OH! Could A States’ Rights Battle Be Emerging?

/in , , /by

This is a call for State governments to assert themselves. States Rights was/is a big issue in the South and the Southern Cross battle flag kind of stood for that.

Michael Patrick Leahy for Breitbart Writes:

A new Rasmussen Poll indicates that a growing number of Americans want state governments to tell the Supreme Court to get out of the business of rewriting laws and telling American citizens how to live their lives.

In a new poll, Rasmussen reported the percentage of Americans who want states to tell the Supreme Court it does not have the power to rewrite the Affordable Care Act or force sovereign states to authorize gay marriages has increased from 24 percent to 33 percent after last week’s Constitution-defying decisions by the court.

A closer look at the poll results indicates that popular sentiment for state defiance of the federal government extends beyond just the Supreme Court’s latest decisions.

“Only 20% [of likely voters] now consider the federal government a protector of individual liberty,” the Rasmussen Poll finds. “Sixty percent (60 %) see the government as a threat to individual liberty instead,” it adds.

“Take this regulation and shove it,” and “take this grant and shove it,” are two additional battle cries which appear to resonate with a growing popular sentiment, especially in “flyover country,” those 38 states outside the dozen in which President Obama won more than 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012.

(In descending order of support for Obama, those twelve states are: Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine. Arguably, three additional states where President Obama won between 54 percent and 56.2 percent of the vote in 2012 could be added to this list: Washington, Oregon, and Michigan.)

CONTINUE READING HERE:

Time for the States to Declare Independence From the Federal Government – Breitbart

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Allen West Republic.

Supreme Court’s Same Sex Marriage Decision Judicial Tyranny — Expect a Wave of Christian Persecution

/in , , , /by

Last Friday, June 26th, a committee of five un-elected lawyers ignoring the expressed will of an overwhelming majority of Americans, ruled that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one women, which has existed for thousands of years, is unconstitutional. In the process the majority dispelled the concept “that we are a government of laws, not of men.”

Four Justices wrote stinging dissents. Justice Scalia wrote that the majority opinion is “a threat to American democracy.”  Scalia went on: “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government…. A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

READ the dissents: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Of the 35 States that voted on the issue of same-sex marriage, 32 States opted to retain the traditional definition of marriage.  In fact, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court reviewed the laws of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  In each of these states, an overwhelming majority of voters voted in favor of traditional marriage: 88% in Tennessee, 74% in Kentucky, 62% in Ohio and 59% in Michigan.

Chief Justice Roberts, destroying the majority’s legal basis for same–sex marriage, concluded, “The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”  He wrote, “The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”

Up until last Friday, since the founding of our nation, and for the last approximately 2,000 years of Christianity, across all civilizations and cultures, the definition of marriage has been the same—the union of a man and a woman.

And Bible believing Christians cannot and will not accept this illegitimate decision.  Christ said:

“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6, NASB)

The Court’s decision in this case is not the final word.  It is not the same as So sayeth the Lord.

In 1857, the Supreme Court used the same substantive Due Process rationale in its Dred Scott decision to protect the rights of slaveholders to own slaves as property.  As Chief Justice Roberts observed, “Dred Scott’s holding was overruled on the battlefields of the Civil War….”

Christians are born for combat, and so this decision, similar to the Courts creation of the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v Wade, will not end the debate.  We must launch a well-thought out offensive to change this decision and stop America’s decline as a result of her jettisoning the Christian principles upon which this great nation was founded.

So what’s next?

In the short term we must ensure that federal and state laws are enacted that will protect the religious freedom of Christians, not only to speak out but also, to exercise their faith. But that is just the beginning. We must also begin to counter the slick, meaningless slogans used by homosexual advocates such as “marriage equality.”  A million-man march on Washington may also get the Court and politicians to act.

Families are too important to the survival of our nation for Christians to retreat to their religious ghetto. Besides, homosexuals will not be satisfied until every vestige of opposition to same-sex marriage is destroyed.  They have already embarked on a wave of persecution against those opposed to their agenda.  It will only get worse.

Princeton law professor Robert George pointed to the increasing oppression of Christians who oppose a redefinition of marriage. He said that business owners, adoption agencies and workers in several states have already been threatened, pushed out of their industries, or forced to violate their consciences in order to operate their businesses. George pointed out that many government employees have been subjected to disciplinary action and threatened with termination for expressing their biblical views on marriage. Unquestionably there will be efforts to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church as well as other Christian organizations that teach that marriage is the union of a man and woman. And the list will continue on.

The Thomas more Law Center filed several friend of the court briefs in support of the definition of traditional marriage. It has defended the rights of Christians to speak out  and act on this issue and it will continue to do so.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Senator Ted Cruz Tells States to Ignore Supreme Court Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

Stop the Media From Silencing Your Voice on Marriage

Why Bobby Jindal Is ‘Not Evolving’ on Marriage

In-Depth: 4 Harms the Court’s Marriage Ruling Will Cause

How to Preserve Religious Freedom After Supreme Court’s Activist Decision on Marriage

Bobby Jindal: ‘Religious Liberty Created the United States of America’

Why There’s No Right to Gay Marriage in 6 Short Video Clips

/in , , , , , /by

On Thursday night, Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, participated in a debate about gay marriage. The Heritage Foundation Video Team assembled some of the key moments and exchanges from that debate here.

What true marriage equality is:

There are good arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate:

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do.

Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.

Giving equal dignity to gays and lesbians doesn’t require redefining marriage:

Why does it matter if there’s both gay marriage and straight marriage?

Talking about Mark Regnerus’ studies about children and same-sex marriage:

On plural marriages:

Watch the full debate:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Gay Marriage: A Trojan Horse Movement Aimed at the Heart of Our Constitution [+videos]

Jim DeMint: Why You Should March for Marriage

Are Liberals Finally Rallying to Save Liberty?

Why States Should Get to Decide on Whether to Redefine Marriage

The Nightmare of our Lifetime: Gay Marriage is now LEGAL in Florida

/in , , , , , /by

Hope all is well on this “Week of Infamy” – as our beloved state of Florida – the one that we all love so dearly – is the latest to fall to the “depths of the demons”. Yes, just picture two men in full beards at some church (other than a Catholic Church) saying “I do” and the gutless presider saying “You can now kiss the bride”…Think about that for a minute. Let it sink in…and then, try to explain it to your 7 year-old son who confusingly asks: “Daddy, aren’t those two men up at the altar? Is that his best man?” “No, son, that is his husband – those two men are actually getting married to one another”…

Friends: If you are not sick to your stomach – disgusted to the nth degree about what is going on in our beloved United States of America with this “Same Sex Marriage Crap” – you need to check your pulse! If today’s front page in every single newspaper in the state of Florida did not make you want to throw up your breakfast – I don’t know what to tell you. I could not even read the front page of the Palm Beach Post this morning! I could not watch the News on TV. The way those anchors so enthusiastically shared this disgusting news with their viewers – as if they were all for it. Sickening. Appalling. Immoral. UnGodly. Sad state of affairs – all 36 of them…soon to be all 50…

When the “Dysfunctional Closet Emperor” took office 6 years ago, only 4 states legalized Gay Marriage. Today, it is 36…and counting. You can blame the liberal socialist in our White House for these shenanigans as that was a huge priority in his platform – Legalize Gay Marriage. And, he’s got 727 days left as a “dead duck” – I mean – “lame duck” – and GOD knows what else this Pro-abortion impostor has up his rolled up sleeves…

And, like I have said time and again – you want to be gay and jovial – that’s fine. I will never attack or condemn a person for his or her choice of sexual preference. I don’t agree with it, I know that it is immoral and unGodly – but, I will not attack them or judge them. I refuse to waste my time with that when I have so much to do. No, I am not “homo-phobic” – I just happen to be a devout follower of Jesus Christ. I know plenty of gay people. A couple of them re-did my closet…

You can say that you are in love with your same sex partner and want to have a marriage, a civil union, a relationship…that’s fine. But, when you tell me that you are getting married – and you refer to this Gay Marriage as a Holy Matrimony – one of our Blessed Sacraments – then, you will have to hold me back…You do NOT mess with Holy Matrimony when it comes to Same Sex Marriage because it CANNOT be a Holy Sacrament in the eyes of GOD…Holy Matrimony is the civil union between One Man and One Woman. Period. End of story…

That has been my stand on this fiasco that people refer to as Gay Marriage from Day I. Again, it cannot be a Holy Sacrament and the term Holy Matrimony cannot be in the same vocabulary. You want to get married for health benefits, to save money, to beat the system, to be flamboyant & rebellious and smear it in everybody’s face – that’s fine with me. Just do not come anywhere close to any of our “53” Catholic Churches in our Diocese to even think of getting married at one of our ever-sacred altars…That is Holy Ground…That is Jesus’ sacred territory…

Friends: I have already expressed my thoughts and stance on this Gay Marriage issue to Bishop Barbarito over a year ago when I met with him. And, like our beloved Bishop, everybody knows that if, indeed, I find out that one of our priests in our Catholic Diocese is going to be presiding in a Gay Marriage in any one of our churches – you are going to have to put me behind bars. As GOD as my witness, I will do everything in my power and spiritual being to NOT allow any same sex marriage happen in any of our Catholic churches! Not over my dead body…And, I pray to GOD that everybody who is reading this e-mail, is with me on this and has my back on this commitment. Let us Pray…

For the life of me, I still cannot comprehend how Gay Marriage has been legalized in “36” states in our beloved country. Like I have written time and again – only a mere “2%” of this country considers themselves Gay. Not 92%! That’s 2% of 318 million American citizens or 6,360,000 homosexuals living in the U.S. Then there is the 98% who are “straight” or 311,640,000. Isn’t that the majority? Doesn’t the majority in this Free Country rule? Let’s see: 2% of 50 states = 1 state. I can see how maybe one state – the state of California may have allowed Gay Marriages out of the 50 states – but, to have “36” states allowing this debacle to take place in this country…come on now – that is almost 75% of our states allowing Gay Marriages – clearly telling us that the mere 2% of this country calls the shots!! Gays Rule!!

Did we not have elections in 2008, 2012 and just recently in the mid-terms on November 4th, where the “majority” voted AGAINST Gay Marriage? I know for a fact, that we did in Florida. How can “5 liberal attorneys in black robes” (including Judge Hinkle), dictate what we can or cannot do in the state of Florida, when it comes to Gay Marriage? How can 5 liberals over-rule the Majority who voted AGAINST Gay Marriage in the state of Florida, after it was clearly declared that Florida does NOT recognize Gay Marriage? Will these same 5 liberal judges over-rule the majority who voted against Medical Marijuana this past November 4th election and legalize it next year? Where does one draw the line? Why in the hell are we voting???

Since 1973, the good, wholesome citizens in this country have been totally disrespected and not given a fair shake in trying to abide by our Constitution and in a “culture of life”. Thus, we have the atrocity of Abortion; the Curse of Common Core; the Fiasco of Obamacare; and now, queers getting married in our beloved Sunshine State…Queers…what a strange word…I thought that term went out in the 60’s. Now, it’s back to haunt us and it is beyond appalling…

Pam Bondi – Thank you for your relentless efforts! Our courageous, petite Attorney General fought this immoral non-sense tooth and nail to the end. I am not sure where everybody else was at. Where were the rest of our state leaders at – beginning with Governor Rick Scott? As governor of Florida, do you have any say in this matter? How can you possibly allow this to happen before your very own eyes when you know the way that voters voted against this fiasco? If the past 3 elections clearly showed that “we do not approve of Gay Marriage in Florida”, how come 5 liberal judges have the power to tell us straight people to take a hike? How can this happen in the United States of America? Where are the American citizen’s rights? Why is this corrupt system giving those “legal rights” to 2% of our country’s population while the majority of the other 98% have to suffer? How come we did not have a say in this matter, while it was just over-turned, and presto – Gay Marriage in Florida! Are you all with me? Am I missing something?

In closing, all I can say is that I feel for the generations to come. I feel for our beloved children. That is who I live for. Explaining abortion and Common Core to them has been a huge challenge. It is tough for a 10 year-old kid to comprehend that there are doctors (OBGYNs) in this world who can deliver a perfectly healthy baby on a Monday and say “It’s a boy”. And, then, have that same doctor (an abortionist), kill a perfectly healthy baby on Tuesday and say “It’s a job”…Now, try to explain to that same 10 year-old kid that it’s ok that those two men at the check-out counter in Publix are “normal” because they are affectionately kissing each other. “Yes, Johnny, those two men are legally married to one another. I know that it is an abomination in the eyes of GOD, but, it is perfectly normal in the eyes of those 5 liberal judges and a handful of liberal politicians who just ruined the state of Florida at midnight last night. That is why you are Catholic and you must continue to pray, be bold for your Faith and fight against the intrinsic evils of this society with all that you’ve got. In the end, good will prevail over evil – GOD over the devil…Let us Pray.

fl catholic bishops

TALLAHASSEE, FL (January 5, 2015) – The Catholic Bishops of Florida have issued a statement addressing the redefinition of marriage in Florida to accommodate couples of the same sex.

The full statement follows:

Tomorrow, with the expiration of a stay on a U.S. District Court ruling, marriage licenses for same sex couples are being issued for the first time in our state. The Catholic bishops of Florida are deeply disappointed by Judge Hinkle’s ruling, as well as refusals by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the decision while appeals pend.

The conjugal nature of a marriage between a man and a woman has provided for millennia the basis for norms of marital exclusivity and permanence that made possible stable families necessary for human flourishing. In redefining marriage to include same sex couples, the judge has in effect overturned a state constitutional amendment approved by nearly 62% of the electorate in a 2008 ballot initiative.

How society understands marriage has great public significance. Because of this, redefining civil “marriage” to include two persons of the same sex will have far-reaching consequences in society. Such a change advances the notion that marriage is only about the affective gratification of consenting adults. Such a redefinition of marriage does nothing to safeguard a child’s right to a mother and father and to be raised in a stable family where his or her development and well-being is served to the greatest extent possible.

Redefinition of marriage will have implications not yet fully understood. The term “marriage” can be found in family law, employment law, trusts and estates, healthcare law, tax law, property law, and many others. These laws also affect and pervasively regulate public and private institutions including religious institutions, such as churches, schools, and hospitals. Besides the predictably disruptive effects, imposing this redefinition of marriage threatens both religious liberty and the freedom of individuals to conscientiously object as already seen in those states that have redefined marriage to accommodate same sex couples.

Marriage based on the complementarity of the sexes is the lifeblood of family, and family is the foundation of our society. The crisis that sadly the family is experiencing today will only be aggravated by imposing this redefinition of marriage. Society must rediscover the irreplaceable roles of both mother and father who bring unique gifts to the education and rearing of children.

For the benefit of society and the common good, the conjugal understanding of marriage between a husband and a wife and complementarity of a father and mother must be preserved so that the family can be a school of love, justice, compassion, forgiveness, mutual respect, patience and humility in the midst of a world darkened by selfishness and conflict.

Our parishes, family life offices and other ministries are available to assist those seeking to understand the truth and beauty of marriage and to assist husbands and wives to strengthen their bonds. Additional resources can be found at www.marriageuniqueforareason.org and www.foryourmarriage.org / www.portumatrimonio.org.

We look forward to the first visit of Pope Francis to the United States, where he will lead the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, from September 22-27, 2015. For each of us, our true glory is in our capacity to love as God loves; and no better means exists to teach the meaning of love than the family. May we speak the truth in love, and may family life led by father and mother flourish again in our state, nation and throughout the world.

The statement can be found online at: http://www.flaccb.org/statements/2015/150105Marriage.pdf

ABOUT THE FLORIDA CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops is an agency of the Catholic Bishops of Florida. It speaks for the Church in matters of public policy and serves as liaison to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The archbishop and bishops of the seven (arch)dioceses in Florida constitute its board of directors.

Back to the Future – Gay Marriage

/in , , /by

The Roman Empire was “ahead of its time,” establishing slavery-pedophilia and same-sex unions as the norm. Nero, the Roman emperor married at least two men in lavish public ceremonies, wearing a veil, and all the appearances of a traditional wedding: “dowry, marriage bed, torches, and witnesses.” According to Craig Turner, the Roman historian, Tacitus, described Nero’s engaging in coitus with the “groom” in full view of the wedding guests. He further described Nero’s deeds as engaging in “every filthy, depraved act, licit or illicit.”

During his infamous reign, Nero also rounded up Christians and tied them to stakes, burning them to light his garden. His penchant for violence included countless brutal executions, including that of his own mother. Not surprisingly, he committed suicide in 68 AD.

Gary DeMar sums up our current dilemma perfectly, when he says, “What stopped the moral disintegration was the spread of Christianity. It’s frightening to think that today, many Christians have sided with Nero.”

Traditional marriage and gay marriage are mutually exclusive and to remain silent is complicity. 41 states have voted to protect traditional marriage, but the “progressive” media, “emperor” Obama, and a handful of unelected Supreme court justices, are hell bent on forcing their will upon the American people.

The Book of books, outlining the structure for a well ordered civil society, and upon which our country was built, has given us the most prosperous and free country in history. People from all over the world have risked their lives to participate in our 200 + year “experiment” called liberty.

We have special protections for every segment of society, written into law, EXCEPT for Christians and heterosexuals. Will history repeat itself, or will we rise up and declare that we are, now and always, a Christian nation?

RELATED COLUMN: Questions You’re Asking About Cakes, Gays, and Religious Freedom

Catholic Bishops file amicus brief in support of Defense of Marriage Act

/in , , , /by

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on January 29, 2013 filed amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, both of which confirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

DOMA was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996 and defines marriage for federal and inter-state recognition purposes. Proposition 8 is a state constitutional amendment approved by the citizens of California in 2008. Both laws are challenged because they define marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

Urging the Court to uphold DOMA the USCCB brief in United States v. Windsor says that “there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” The brief also states that “as defined by courts ‘sexual orientation’ is not a classification that should trigger heightened scrutiny,” such as race or ethnicity would.

It added that “civil recognition of same-sex relationships is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition—quite the opposite is true. Nor can the treatment of such relationships as marriages be said to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”

USCCB argued that previous Supreme Court decisions “describing marriage as a fundamental right plainly contemplate the union of one man and one woman.”

The USCCB also cautioned that a decision invalidating DOMA “would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.”

In a separate brief filed in Hollingsworth v Perry urging the Court to uphold Proposition 8, the USCCB states that there are many reasons why the state may reasonably support and encourage marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, as distinguished from other relationships. Government support for marriage, so understood, is “recognizing the unique capacity of opposite-sex couples to procreate” and “the unique value to children of being raised by their mother and father together.”

The USCCB brief states that “[T]he People of California could reasonably conclude that a home with a mother and a father is the optimal environment for raising children, an ideal that Proposition 8 encourages and promotes. Given both the unique capacity for reproduction and unique value of homes with a mother and father, it is reasonable for a State to treat the union of one man and one woman as having a public value that is absent from other intimate interpersonal relationships.”

The USCCB brief adds that “While this Court has held that laws forbidding private, consensual, homosexual conduct between adults lack a rational basis, it does not follow that the government has a constitutional duty to encourage or endorse such conduct. Thus, governments may legitimately decide to further the interests of opposite-sex unions only. Similarly, minimum standards of rationality under the Constitution do not require adopting the lower court’s incoherent definition of ‘marriage’ as merely a ‘committed lifelong relationship,’ which is wildly over-inclusive, empties the term of its meaning, and leads to absurd results.”

“Marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, is not an historical relic, but a vital and foundational institution of civil society today,” the USCCB brief states. “The government interests in continuing to encourage and support it are not merely legitimate, but compelling. No other institution joins together persons with the natural ability to have children, to assure that those children are properly cared for. No other institution ensures that children will at least have the opportunity of being raised by their mother and father together. Societal ills that flow from the dissolution of marriage and family would not be addressed—indeed, they would only be aggravated—were the government to fail to reinforce the union of one man and one woman with the unique encouragement and support it deserves.”

The USCCB brief also notes that “Proposition 8 is not rendered invalid because some of its supporters were informed by religious or moral considerations. Many, if not most, of the significant social and political movements in our Nation’s history were based on precisely such considerations.Moreover, the argument to redefine marriage to include the union of persons of the same sex is similarly based on a combination of religious and moral considerations (albeit ones that are, in our view, flawed).As is well established in this Court’s precedent, the coincidence of law and morality, or law and religious teaching, does not detract from the rationality of a law.”

USCCB notes that a judicial decision invalidating Proposition 8’s definition of marriage would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.

“[R]edefining marriage—particularly as a matter of constitutional law, rather than legislative process—not only threatens principles of federalism and separation of powers, but would have a widespread adverse impact on other constitutional rights, such as the freedoms of religion, conscience, speech, and association.Affirmance of the judgment below would create an engine of conflict in this area, embroiling this Court and lower courts in a series of otherwise avoidable disputes—pitting constitutional right squarely against constitutional right—for years to come.