A good article that, without putting down homosexuality or gay unions, or mentioning of God or morals, gives a compelling argument for why marriage should retain its “traditional” definition.
My Godfather was a bachelor who lived in a small cottage in East Melbourne. We called him Uncle Ernest but he was actually my grandfather’s brother and technically my mother’s uncle. He came once a week to dinner at our house and was an important influence on my development. Although my parents were by no means uncultured, he brought something extra into my life in terms of a respect for the arts and the value of refinement and taste. He was for me a model of elegance and urbanity and, most important of all, gave me a sense of style. I still remember when he took me to my first Shakespeare play in the city, performed by the visiting Old Vic Company. I believe he had a similar positive influence on some of my cousins. Continue reading
Judge Vaughn Walker is in the news again, and it’s not a pretty sight for those who care about the rule of law and judicial process.
First, Judge Walker gives an interview in which he acknowledges he’s been in a ten-year partnership with a man. No less a legal scholar than John Eastman, former dean of Chapman University School of Law, argues that this heretofore undisclosed relationship grave consequences for Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8.
Eastman writes: “Walker’s admission requires that his decision in the case be vacated. He is either a direct beneficiary of his ruling in the case, or a person with a close-enough personal interest in the case that his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned if the required disclosures had been made.”
Here’s a question no one has publicly asked yet: Is Judge Walker married to his partner under California law? Are they in a domestic partnership? Judge Walker has never directly answered this question—and California permits “confidential marriage licenses” so the public would not necessarily have any way to know. Continue reading
Our good friend Joshua was recently interviewed by a journalist (of questionable objectivity) at the San Jose Mercury News. From the negative responses to the article, its clear that many people in the gay community still do not believe a man with same-sex attraction can choose not to be in a homosexual relationship…and be happier then if was gay. Those nay-sayers obviously don’t know Joshua. Anyone who has heard his testimony should know that Joshua does not buy into the “I can’t help my actions” argument, and that he understands the situation better than just about anyone else.
Joshua is a 30-year-old active Mormon who considered himself gay until he married his wife. He requested his last name be withheld to protect his privacy. He is a computational linguist who lives in Union City and works in Palo Alto.
How would you describe your marriage?
I have been married to a wonderful woman for just over a year. Married life couldn’t be better. It is more wonderful than I could ever have imagined. For a long time I didn’t think a faithful marriage to a woman would work, but my love for her has eclipsed anything I ever felt for a man. The difference between my sexual attraction for men and for my wife is my sexual attraction for men comes more from my natural desires, where my sexual attraction for my wife has grown out of the love I have for her. Continue reading
Bay Area schools promote gay families in Elementary School curriculum. The ACLU orders schools to portray gays in a positive light and teach gay history:
(www.baycitizen.org)- “After a lesbian student at Jesse Bethel High School in Vallejo joined with the American Civil Liberties Union in 2008 to accuse the local school district of discrimination, district officials agreed as part of a settlement to show films and assign homework depicting same-sex families, beginning in elementary school….
A bill introduced in December by State Senator Mark Leno, Democrat of San Francisco, would require all of the state’s history textbooks to include figures and events in gay history and portray them “in a positive light.”
As a parent, there is a simple thing you can do to counter this. Find out when and where these indoctrinations will take place and pull your kid out of school for the day. Spend the time teaching them correct morals. Encourage other parents to do the same. If they do not warn you ahead of time, instruct your child to walk out of the classroom and call you to pick them up. If anyone gives you a hard time, tell them that your child’s religious values are being imposed upon and say you would rather leave it at this and not go to the media and the courts.
For every day that a child misses school, that school loses some of it’s funding. If enough people walk out on this ridiculous abuse of public education’s influence over our children, they will have to stop it. But its about much more than liberal abuses, it is about keeping your child safe from bad influences.
If your child is scared of what other students say, you can always let them tell their friend that they’re just doing it to get out of school. Maybe more students will join in and make your boycott more effective!
It’s a sad day for democracy. Instead of defending the law, liberal politicians defend their special interests.
California’s attorney general is asking a judge to allow same-sex marriages to resume in the state immediately, without waiting for a ruling on whether a law banning gay marriage is constitutional.
Attorney General Kamala Harris Tuesday filed a letter with the federal appeals court that is considering the case. A federal judge has already struck down the law, known as Proposition 8, that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
But a different judge put the ruling on hold – stopping gay marriages – until an appeal was heard. The state supreme court is now weighing whether that appeal should go forward. It will depend on whether or not the supreme court finds the defenders of Proposition 8 have legal standing to fight the appeal, given that the top state officials declined to do so. That ruling may not be made until the end of the year.
In her letter, Harris said it was unlikely the supreme court would support the legal standing for the lawsuit, and so keeping Proposition 8 in effect in the meantime was denying Californians their equal rights.
She said the case was also “substantially diminished” by the recent decision by U.S. President Barack Obama to stop defending a similar federal law, that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Unfortunately, no one didn’t see this coming. The Obama department of Justice (that has insisted on giving 9/11 terrorists the rights of US citizens, has been attacking Arizona for trying to defend their border, and has bent our constitution all directions to defend Obamacare in court) announced today that they will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from lawsuits by liberal organizations bent on destroying marriage; Despite the fact, of course, that DOMA was enacted by congress as law and the DOJ’s job is to enforce federal law.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it will no longer defend the constitutionality of a federal law that bans recognition of same-sex marriage.
In a statement Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder says President Obama has concluded that the administration can no longer defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The Justice Department had defended the Defense of Marriage Act in court until now.
Where did our state and federal officials get this funny idea that they can pick and choose which laws and what parts of the constitution they want to enforce and defend? What is the point of a democracy where a measure passed by a wide majority of the people (Prop 8 in California) or of their elected officials (DOMA) is struck down by unelected judges who don’t like it and left defenseless by attorney generals (Jerry Brown and Eric Holder) who refuse to do their job and defend the people they are supposed to represent?
These are all signs of a democracy in real trouble, with autocratic-minded government and apathetic citizens who don’t value their freedom.
Marriage is under attack in Rhode Island and Maryland, with same-sex marriage activists seeking to quickly push gay marriage legislation through in both states. We urgently need your help. If you live in Rhode Island or Maryland, please click here to take action in your state today. (Click here for Rhode Island. Click here for Maryland)
And all of us need to forward this message to anyone we know who lives in either Rhode Island or Maryland.
Activists in Rhode Island are already celebrating…The Washington Post says same-sex marriage in Maryland is “almost a done deal.” But as a wise man once said, “If it were a done deal, it would be done already.” We’ve seen before what happens when voters stand up and make their voices heard. Even supposedly “inevitable” same-sex marriage bills were derailed in New York and New Jersey when voters started calling their legislators.
It’s time to do it again. If you live in Rhode Island or Maryland, please click here to contact your legislators. (Click here for Rhode Island. Click here for Maryland) Do it right now. And if you know someone who lives in either Rhode Island or Maryland, please forward this message to them right now, urging them to stand up for marriage. We need all hands on deck. Please do what you can today.
Already, Bishop Tobin and other religious and community leaders have begun speaking out in Rhode Island. Yesterday, NOM joined the effort, launching a TV ad campaign urging Rhode Islanders to contact their elected officials.
As NOM Rhode Island Executive Director Christopher Plante said yesterday, “Lincoln Chafee got just 36% of the vote in the recent election . . . Our message is that getting 36% of the vote is no mandate to redefine the institution of marriage for all of Rhode Island society.” With polls showing that 80% of Rhode Islanders want to vote on marriage, Plante continued: “If legislators in Rhode Island wish to redefine marriage, they should put this issue on the ballot where the people themselves can decide if they wish to abandon one of the most fundamental institutions of society.”