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
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.
Attorneys General from 13 other states had to step in and file briefs last Fridaywith the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to defend California's Prop 8 because current CA Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to do his job and give legal defense to the state. On the contrary, he is fighting to overturn the people's vote. This career politician wants a shot at being Governor again?
Last Friday, some twenty-five amicus briefs – representing nearly 100 individuals and organizations — were filed at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of Prop 8! One of the many highlights from Friday’s filings was a brief filed by thirteen state attorneys general — led by Greg Zoeller of Indiana, Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia, Michael Cox of Michigan and James Caldwell of Louisiana — making the case for Prop 8 that California AG Jerry Brown has refused to make. The brief is an outstanding explanation of why we have laws governing marriage (“responsible procreation”), and why Judge Walker’s view of marriage is simply incoherent. Read it here . . . then click here to send a short email thanking these courageous officials for standing up for marriage!
The National Organization for Marriage filed a terrific brief, laying out the purpose of marriage laws and the harm which will result if the courts redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. You can read some of the key excerpts here, or click here to read the entire brief.
A new Wenzel poll shows that an overwhelming 70% of Americans want marriage limited to a man and woman. 91.5% of Republicans think marriage should be only between a man and a woman and 7.7% say between two people of any gender. The majority of Democrats also support traditional marriage with only 44.3% supporting ‘gay marriage.’
A startling 2.2% of Democrats think plural marriage should be allowed and 0.2% of Democrats support bestiality. I really hope that’s just the segment who responded to the poll flippantly…
This poll also reveals the anti-religious bias in the Public Religion Research Institute who ridiculously claimed that an overwhelming majority of Californians support gay marriage after gay dictator Judge Walker overthrew the constitutional amendment.
The Prop 8 legal defense team has filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, and it is a tour de force.
Authored by chief Prop 8 litigator Chuck Cooper, the 100+ page brief shreds the decision of federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker, and lays bare all the legal, logical, and factual errors that Walker made in his ruling. Read it here.
Citing case after case from court after court, Cooper thoroughly and meticulously dismantles Walker’s outrageous opinion finding that voters have no right to protect marriage as one man and one woman. As noted legal commentator Ed Whelan has pointed out, the alleged “Dream Team” of Olson and Boies have lost in every court they have argued this case–with the sole exception of the rogue Judge Vaughn Walker. Judge Walker ignored mountains of evidence–from binding Supreme Court precedent, to at least 9 other state and federal court precedents, along with the conclusions of academic research and eminent scholars, and even common sense–to reach his radical conclusion.
“This is not a hard question,” Cooper writes. “Indeed, because of the distinguishing procreative characteristics of heterosexual relationships, until quite recently ‘it was accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriage only between participants of different sex.’ And marriage has existed in virtually all societies, from the ancients to the American states, because it serves a vital and universal societal purpose – a purpose, indeed, that makes marriage, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, ‘fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race.’” Continue reading
Thanks to Thinking the Wright Way for bringing this article to my attention. The women’s liberation movement began in order to give women the ability to independently participate in society and be fully appreciated for their feminine characteristics. Somewhere, this movement was hijacked by those who would have women believe that their own feminine characteristics were the problem and that freedom of the sex would be accomplished by them becoming more like men. Women were told that they needed to stop being mothers and instead work and be more sexually promiscuous like the men. Men, in turn, were told that their masculinity was oppressive, chivalry was inappropriate and fatherhood unnecessary.
How did we ever get to the point where we teach women that noncommittal sexuality is liberating and should be encouraged, but having a child is shackling and should be aborted? I know this is not what those pioneers of feminism had in mind back then. It is the very opposite of what they considered women’s liberation!
“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”
– Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) Organizer of the first women’s rights convention in the United States; leader in the anti-slavery and women’s suffrage movements
“Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”
– Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923) who opposed the later trend of linking the E.R.A. with abortion rights
Read the article below:
While judges and politicians struggle to give Californians gay marriage “whether they like it or not,” Americans are overwhelmingly not in favor of it. In the latest poll from Public Policy Polling conducted Aug. 6-9, Americans opposed gay marriage almost 2-to-1 — 57 percent opposed, 33 percent in favor.
Ed Whelan made one of the most trenchant points I’ve seen anyone make about the significance of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to stay Walker’s ruling:
“Walker’s reversals also call into question the judgment of the supposed dream team of plaintiffs’ lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies,” writes Whelan over at Bench Memos. “…[D]espite their massive advantage in resources, Olson and Boies have lost to Cooper and his team on every issue that has been decided by any court other than Walker’s.” Continue reading