Democrats distrust voters on marriage...
The newest state to make headlines for forwarding the "protection of marriage" issue is yet another blue state from the American northwest.
Washington State will see two pieces of state legislation be argued over in the next few days. One of them a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage, another to extend special rights to homosexuals in issues of housing, employment, etc.
What's at stake is the state's ability to uphold its own Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from 1998. State lawmakers wish to pursue the Constitutional Amendment in the event that the state's DOMA is overturned. And on March 8 the State Supreme Court will consider an appeal of rulings as to the consitutionality of the DOMA.
Another resolution to be introduced will attempt to place the power to define marriage solely with the legislature. This would prevent the use of public money for any entitlements for couples (heterosexual or otherwise) whose marriages are not recognized by law.
On the other side of the issue, Democrats in the state legislature are trying for the 28th time in as many years to extend special preferences to homosexuals through codified regulation. HB1515 will give homosexuals "go to the front of the line" status - just because they enjoy having sex with people of their same gender. One of the proponents said.
"Fairness demands that we treat all our citizens equally"
I couldn't agree with him more. But unfortunately I don't believe the issue of who sleeps with who SHOULD be criteria for getting a job. And if a landlord is forced to subsidize homosexual behavior on his property - doesn't this make him complicit with the act. And doesn't that violate his conscience if his code for moral conduct does define such behavior as in fact immoral?
But the most important quote of the piece deals with the democratic party's trust of the voters of Washington.
"They're trying to push this even further than a ban on marriage equality," said Roger Winters of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington, a gay-rights group. "In this state, we have a tradition of being concerned about minority rights."
The Rev. Joseph Fuiten, president of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government, said the definition of marriage is one that voters - not nine justices - should get to decide.
"Across the country, what we're seeing is a reaction against the courts and a move against gay marriage," Fuiten said.
"The people don't want this," he said of gay marriage. "And if we voted on it here in Washington today, that would be clear. That's why the Democrats won't give the people a vote."
Nor have they given them a chance to vote on it - even in Massachusetts where the law now violates the popular will of the voters of that state...
Marriage Watch: Massachusetts Reverse Gay Marriage?
Is the state that got the entire debate over the legalization of redefining marriage to include same sex unions about to overturn its original ruling?
Probably far from it, but the fact that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is ready to hear from opponents to its original controversial decision is at least a good sign. The opponents had originally filed for a hearing within the 180 days after the SJC made its ruling, but a single activist judge spiked the appeal. Over the last number of months however the appeal has made its way through the courts and as of today the Boston Herald reports that the SJC has agreed to hear the case...stay tuned.
Meanwhile on the West Coast, last year's poster child for "Activist Mayor Willing to Break All Laws At Any Cost" San Fran Mayor Gavin Newsom is criticizing NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg for not adopting his same bravado.
"People don't like politicians, and now I know why," he said. "If you think you believe something, you've got to act on it. If you don't believe in it, don't
act on it. But don't say you believe something and then do everything to stifle that belief."
Actually - while many on BOTH sides of the marriage issue are quite put out with Bloomberg at the moment. What we really hate more than anything is activist politicians and judges - who break the laws they don't like when it serves their political purposes - like Newsom.
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting has released this analysis of how the redefinition of marriage to include same sex unions has been covered by the press. Even though it is written from fairly pro-same-sex-union viewpoint - it is an interesting read all the same.
The Denver Post is reporting that Focus On The Family hopes to get the Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage on an additional 15 state ballots in 2006. They are even attempting the measure in their home state of Colorado which is working against both chambers of the state legislature - both controlled by Democrats.
Gay journalists are still trying to equate the plight of the homosexual in the redefinition of marriage to that of African Americans in the civil rights movement...not convincingly...In homage to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry - here's another "Fake Catholic Alert"...you know - politicians that claim faith but choose to not live it...
And this report demonstrates the significant wins on the pro-marriage side of the issue that were advanced this week across the nation...including Kansas, Alabama, Virginia, Indiana, and South Dakota.
Originally posted on 2/8/2005
MARRIAGE DEBATE ACROSS AMERICA: A lot of movement is happening across the U.S. towards a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. Will New York be part of this growing movement?Alabama, Indiana, and Virgina all took steps towards advancing a Constitutional Amendment. Connecticut and New York are struggling with what to do.
New York City has decided to skip an intermediate court and take its appeal directly to the state's highest court the New York Court of Appeals.
Michael A. Cardozo, the city's chief lawyer, said in a statement yesterday that the city would take its appeal directly to the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, skipping an intermediate court, "so that a decision on this important issue can be reached as quickly as possible."
Mayor Bloomberg is giving lip-service to the appeal. On Saturday he came out with an endorsement for gay-marriage and then mumbled something to the media about how Judge Cohan's ruling was the wrong way to go about achieving it.
The Court of Appeals is obliged to consider all cases that raise direct state constitutional issues. It is rare however for the case to take a case that bypasses the lower courts. According to the NYTimes it has only taken 4 such cases in 15 years. (My prediction is that this will be case number 5)
In requesting the expedited appeal, officials are trying to shorten the time between filing and the issuance of a decision. In 2003 the average was 259 days. Judge Ling-Cohan has only stayed her ruling for 30 days. From my understanding this means that if the appeal takes the average amount of time - marriage can be redefined in New York for 229 days - before being revoked by an appeals court ruling.
MarriageWatch: In Virginia the state House of Delegates passed a constitutional ban on redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. The House voted 78 to 18 to complete passage of a resolution similar to the one the Senate passed on Monday.
In Indiana a Senate committee advanced a resolution that would lead to a constitutional ban of the redefining of marriage as well. The lawmakers on the committee voted 7-4. They spent more than two hours debating it.
In Alabama voters have been quizzed on the matter. And a majority strongly support a constitutional amendment that bans the redefinition of marriage. In the survey 58 percent support the ban, 14 percent had no opinion, and 28 percent opposed it.
In Connecticut lawmakers are wrestling with marriage vs. civil unions. What the lawmakers are hoping to accomplish is the establishment of gay unions for the first time without court order. They were also under the delusion that they could establish such unions without offending anyone... At judiciary hearings on Monday supporters from both sides packed the hearing. The NEWS-TIMES noted that some lawmakers "could not understand" opposition to such unions.
In California, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is still defending his illegal issuance of marriage licenses last year. He is evidently suffering from a serious case of denial as well saying that the redefining of marriage "had nothing to do" with the elections of 2004. And in one last moment of defiance after appearing at an event in Massachusetts, Newsome said, "(Redefining marriage to include same sex unions) is an inevitability. Whether you like it or not, this door will never be shut again. "Gay marriage" is going to be legalized in the United States of America. It is a matter of time. Mark my words."
Originally posted on 2/7/2005:
LOTS OF EMOTION YET CLEAR THINKING: Some important updates on the issue of judicial activism as it relates to activist judge Doris Ling-Cohan of the New York State Supreme Court (and someone who should be impeached.)
Slantpoint's Scott Sala continues to lead the way in helping to research and relate new details to the debate. He goes after Bloomberg and outs him as a Republican that the GOP needs to get rid of. He also is openly soliciting for someone to step up and defend marriage.
And in a strange twist Karol from Alarming News alerted me to a guest blogger writing for her this week who is homosexual but still thinks the judge is acting in a way that violates the rule of law.
NYC Mayor Backs Gay Nups
Originally posted on 2/6/2005:
NYC MAYOR ADDS HIS VOICE TO GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Saturday evening that he supports the redefining of marriage to include same sex couples. Marriage has never historically been applied to any arrangement other than that of one woman and one man has husband and wife.
The mayor's announcement came on the heels of activist Judge Doris Ling-Cohan's ruling mandating that same sex couples be issued marriage licenses and concurrently mandating the redefinition of marriage under New York State law.
Bloomberg made his support for "same sex marriage" known at an event Saturday evening at en event hosted by a national gay and lesbian group.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "I think people have the right to love, to live with, and to marry, whoever they want to--regardless of their sexual
The statement brought applause at the black tie event at the Waldorf Astoria.(...Talk about equal rights, I don't remember the civil rights movement having large mayoral receptions at black-tie events at the Waldorf Astoria...but hey I guess 'some' are more equal than others...)
He then announced the intention of the city to appeal Ling-Cohan's ruling. He said he would do so only to avoid a situation to San Francisco where marriage licenses were issued, then revoked.
Mayor Bloomberg: "People were misled into thinking that licenses issued while the case was still going on in the courts would valid regardless of a later decision. That caused a great deal of confusion, and of pain."
The mayor also implied
that if the city did not appeal the decision that there would be chaos in the city, with thousands coming from all over to get married.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "If the courts rules that gay marriages are legal, than that ends it. If the court rules that gay marriages are illegal--well, I guess it doesn't end it in either case, we always have the option to go to the
Clearly Bloomberg is politcally conflicted over the future of the issue. Clearly Bloomberg also panders to whatever crowd he is in front of at the time. What Bloomberg clearly does not understand is the impact of the issue.
The advocates of "gay marriage" or redefining marriage to include same sex unions wish to have society, and even those of different religious persuasion be forced to recognize their sexual unions and more than that to give approval of such unions in relationship to employment, housing, etc.Make no misunderstanding about this...this issue has nothing to do with supposed "equal rights".
Gay couples can already, in every state, create any legal and binding contract that spells out everything from inheritance, to hospital visitation, to tax incentives. No this is not about equal rights... this is about mandated sanctity, and the desire to ultimately punish anyone who believes this behavior to be morally wrong.
But this point is lost on the likes of the Wichita Eagle's Mark McCormack
...who seems to think that we can't possibly know what God thinks of sexual behavior.And that if we believe we do - we are automatically purveyors of hate. (And you see where this is headed with greater expansion of 'hate crimes legislation'...)
It is already a proven fact that pastors are being prosecuted in Scandanavia and Canada for simply reading scripture passages that tell God's viewpoint on sexual issues.
This is why it is becoming increasingly relevant for the President to win approval of the constitional amendment to protect the definition of marriage. For to do anything else - will bring about its destruction.
Reax to Gay-Marriage ruling...
Originally Posted 2/5/2005:
"GAY NUPS AND THE CITY"...OR NOT: I said on the broadcast late in the third hour that it was pretty evident to me that late Friday was the ideal time for Judge Doris Ling-Cohan to quietly release her ruling mandating marriage licenses for same sex partners.
We jumped on it as quickly as we could on Friday. Scott Sala from SlantPoint broke the basics of the story. Maggie Gallagher called us and added some additional information about possible appeals. Dr. Joe Mattera promised the beginning of a process that will sound the call among the people of faith in New York.
But what about the press coverage of the matter?Well here's how it adds up roughly 24 hours after the ruling...MTV reports that the city might be somewhat delayed in implementing the judge's ruling...MTV also felt it was necessary to subject folks to this picture.The New York Daily News included this tidbit from the judge's ruling:
"Simply put, marriage is viewed by society as the utmost expression of a
couple's commitment and love," she wrote. "Plaintiffs may now seek this ultimate expression through a civil marriage."
(As if this narrow, tiny, even miniscule view of marriage encapsulates the entire purpose of this long-standing institution.)
The NYDN also speculates
that the judge's action puts Mayor Bloomberg in a quandry.Of course bloggers began talking it up - mostly lefty blogs in total support of gay marriage. But legal blogger Balkin, who in fact does support same sex marriage, even said that the legal foundation for this ruling is thin - he even speculates/implies
that it probably won't hold up on appeal.
Judge goes activist - Mandates NYC Gay Marriage
Originally posted 2/5/2005
JUDGE MANDATES GAY MARRIAGES IN NEW YORK: A New York State Supreme Court judge has followed the same procedure that occurred in Massachusetts only months ago.Without the voter's participation in the issue, New York based (and elected) judge has approved/mandated "equal access" to gay marriage licenses for the state of New York. New York 1 had the breaking details...
A State Supreme Court Judge has made an historic ruling, clearing the way for five-same sex couples to marry.The couples filed a lawsuit last year, seeking marriage licenses in New York State.In a city courtroom Friday, Judge Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the State Constitution requires same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage.The judge also ruled that the couples, who were represented by Lambda Legal, must be given marriage licenses.
Scott Sala of Slantpoint is doing additional research
on the background of the judge. Scott just appeared on the show...big breaking story...
Call Governor Pataki - 518.474.8390
Call Senator's Clinton and Schumer - 202.225.3121
MarriageWatch: the official blog is finally here.
Look for the latest day of blog info on the debate on marriage - here on MarriageWatch.