After the Honeymoom: The Future of Gay Marriage

New York is in the the news with video clips of men kissing and of course the first two women to get "married" pictutred here. How creepy is that????

The New Post reported: " Up in The Bronx, youth pastor Carmen Hernandez, 48, and dental assistant Doris DeArmas, 50, tied the knot." Yes... YOUTH PASTOR! Can we add one more the unemployment list please????

So seven states have signed up for this circus attack on the foundation of society and you will hear that number reported over and over. What you don't hear is in more than 30 states that have put this issue to a vote, the answer has been NO. The only arenas they have been able to score a victory are in some state legislatures and courts. In other words, this is a classic case of the people vs. the elites.

Again the NY Post reports: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is openly gay, witnessed the ceremony that was officiated by City Clerk Michael McSweeney. Yes the corrupted city leadership cheers on the charade.
Ultimately, this issue will not be resolved in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court: it will be decided by a constitutional amendment. We need leaders who are willing to stand up and do what is needed to pass such an amendment. It's a shame it has to go that far but does.

This simply can not remain a state issue.We can not have people married in one state but not in another. It will effect property, legal rights, custody and so many other issues.
Currently, 30 states have constitutional language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. At the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act (which President Obama had called for it's repeal) also defines marriage in the traditional sense. But unless there is a constitutional amendment, we will continue to have an uneven playing field, one that is ripe for further exploitation.

The Moral War

It's bad enough our military is beginning to bow to pressure and consider recognise same sex unions. They we on the brink of having military chaplains perform same-sex unions.

Oh sure, let not just approve immorality but let's bless it with the stamp of Uncle Sam.

In a one-sentence memo obtained by The Associated Press, Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, chief of Navy chaplains, said his earlier decision has been "suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and interdepartmental coordination."


In my opinion Adm Tidd needs to be removed from his post. He has taken that Rear Admiral title a bit to literal.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110511/D9N512K00.html

State senator introduces marriage amendment

A conservative Republican senator from Blair County is making another attempt to strengthen the state's existing ban on marriages between persons of the same sex.
Story

MASS. SENATE VOTES TO ALLOW OUT OF STATE GAY MARRIAGES

Ignoring the will of the people and, in this case, even the liberal courts.

USA Today

OBAMA: AGAINST PROTECTING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, CONGRATULATES GAYS

As reprted yesterday, it's now clear where Barak Obama stands on protecting marriage. This comes a day after he annouced he would continue Bush's Faith Based Inititive.

The story also notes “the Obama campaign didn't go out of its way to announce the senator's position on a controversial California ballot measure that will have repercussions across the nation. Instead of a splashy public endorsement ceremony, complete with beaming supporters of same-sex marriage, Obama announced his support midway in his letter, which was read at the club's annual breakfast.” The story, like virtually all media, calls it a “ban on gay marriage” when there is no mention of gay marriage in the amendment. (San Francisco Chronicle)

In the letter from Obama he wrote “I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. Later: I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. (Alice Toklas)

MORMON CHURCH BACKS MARRIAGE FIGHT IN CALIFORNIA

Sending a letter that says “The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children. We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to ensure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.”

Score one for the Mormons.

FOX News

CALIFORNIA GIVES UP FIGHT FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

As other states battle to support it. (LA Times) Meanwhile, the public battles the New York governor’s decree that the state honor gay marriages performed elsewhere. (CBS News)

CALIFORNIA SETS GAY MARRIAGE DATE OF JUNE 17

The guidelines from Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, to the state's 58 county clerks also contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. The gender-neutral wording was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter. (CBS News)

Another story notes, from New York: Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada. (NY Times)

From Rebecca Hagelin: If you’ve ever wondered why liberals fight tooth and nail whenever it comes to confirming judges, just look to California.

Could history repeat itself?

From Phil Burress, Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage

Is it possible that the May 15, 2008 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to force same-sex marriage on the people of that state might have sealed the fate of Senator Obama?

It was four years ago on May 17, 2004 that same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts, thanks to a similar decision by that state's high court. The following day, May 18, we began the effort to place on the Ohio ballot a state constitutional amendment to protect Ohio from such judicial activism.

In 1996 Senator John Kerry declared his support for same-sex marriage by being one of only 14 Senators who voted against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That vote eight years prior proved to be Senator Kerry's undoing in Ohio in 2004. Most of the mainstream media as well as political pundits have stated that President Bush won in Ohio because of the Marriage Amendment.

In the 11 states where marriage amendments were on the ballot in 2004, 94 percent of the major newspapers opposed the measures. But the people of those states voted by nearly a 70 percent margin in favor of traditional marriage - showing that voters will not be swayed by the media when it comes to marriage!

In 2004 Ohio's marriage amendment passed by a 62 percent margin. According to a poll conducted by a homosexual activist organization, the number of Ohioans who oppose same-sex marriage actually has risen dramatically since. In 2004 we conducted our own poll to determine the impact that the marriage amendment would have on Ohio voters. Market Strategies, the independent firm conducting the poll, concluded that the marriage amendment would assist President Bush by 3-5 percentage points, would swing undecided voters toward Bush by a 6 to 1 margin, and would double African-American votes for Bush. Their predictions proved correct on all three counts.

When exit polls showed Senator Kerry winning in five out of six major Ohio cities (Cleveland, Dayton, Akron/Canton, Toledo and Columbus), no one who understood Ohio politics thought that Bush could win. Never in the history of Ohio elections had anyone lost in all those major markets and won a statewide race. I was in Columbus that night, and the "experts" there were declaring Kerry the victor. But Bush won - by 118,599 votes, a two percent margin.

What the "experts" did not anticipate was the turnout of conservative voters in rural Ohio, where folks came out to vote for the marriage amendment. Eight-seven of Ohio's 88 counties voted against same-sex marriage. Even 469,000 Kerry voters voted against same-sex marriage.

All of which makes one question: If Ohio's marriage amendment swung Ohio for President Bush against what many considered insurmountable odds, what effect might the issue of same-sex marriage have on the 2008 Presidential Election?

On the issue of same-sex marriage, the difference between Senators McCain and Obama (or Clinton, should she prevail) is even more distinct that the Bush/Kerry divide. In 2004, President Bush did not actively campaign in favor of that year's statewide marriage amendments. At a March 7, 2008 meeting in New Orleans, I directly asked Senator McCain in the presence of 1,000 attendees if he would "openly campaign for the marriage amendment already on the ballot in Florida and the ones likely to be on ballots in Arizona and California." His immediate response was an emphatic "Yes!"

Senators Obama and Clinton may be on the record as being in favor of traditional marriage with support for domestic partnerships, but their voting records, their campaign rhetoric, and their response to the recent California decision clearly place them in the same mold as Senator Kerry, who opposed same-sex marriage with a wink. Will the issue of protecting traditional marriage have an impact on the Election of 2008 similar to its impact in 2004?

The answer to that question depends on Senator McCain. We know that the mainstream media still stands in support of same-sex marriage. And we know that the majority of the American voters still stand opposed. Senator McCain needs to force this issue into the election equation. He needs to make it very clear that he is opposed to same-sex marriage and back up his talk with action by supporting the Marriage Amendments in Florida, Arizona and California. Without a doubt Senator Obama (or Clinton) will try to keep endorsement of same-sex marriage low-key. They both know that history might well repeat itself.

Phil Burress, Chairman, Citizens for Community Values Action

Chairman, Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage

Action Alert: Race for Marriage

The California Supreme Court 4-3 decision ruled that the California state statute defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. That means the voice of the people has been called " unconstitutional".

The ruling also means that California now joins several other states where courts have ordered the legal recognition of same-sex weddings. If you think this only matter to those living in California, you could not be more wrong. Here is just apiece of the court decision: "We cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

The California decision shows exactly what we want to avoid here in Pennsylvania ---judges overturning a state statute defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It's up to the people to decide the definition of marriage, not judges and not politicians. A state constitutional amendment is the only way to protect marriage in Pennsylvania.

SB 1250, the proposed marriage protection amendment, would add the following language to the Pennsylvania Constitution: "No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth."

Whether or not Pennsylvania voters get to vote on the marriage amendment next year depends on the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and especially House Speaker Dennis O'Brien. The scheduled vote on SB 1250 in the State Senate was put on hold last week when, as reported by the Philadelphia Gay News.

The bill was tabled after Speaker of the House Rep. Dennis O'Brien (R-169th Dist.) contacted Republican senators during the May 6 debate and informed them that if introduced in the House, the bill would be sent directly to the State Government Committee. Rep. Babette Josephs (D-182nd Dist.), chair of the committee, has pledged to kill the measure.

Wanting the amendment to succeed, Sen. Brubaker asked his colleagues to hold off on a vote until the House leadership can be convinced by citizen contacts to place the bill in a committee where it can have a fair up or down vote. It is vitally important that Speaker O'Brien rescind his threat to send the bill to its death.

Opponents of the marriage amendment prefer that judges make the decision about marriage like they've done in California and Massachusetts, not you the voter. Here in Pennsylvania, marriage amendment opponents say it is not necessary, since we already have a law on the books defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. Well, so did California, a law passed by 61% vote of the people. Now that law is gone - ruled unconstitutional by four judges.

Throughout the last three months, opponents have tried a series of political maneuvers and made a number of false claims in a desperate attempt to block Pennsylvania voters from deciding the definition of marriage. That's why your action today is vitally important.

ACTION ITEMS:
Contact: Speaker of the House Dennis O'Brien (call 717-787-4610 or email dobrien@pahousegop.com) What to say: "Please support SB 1250. When the amendment comes over from the Senate, will you please place the bill into the House Judiciary Committee." Let us know you contacted him so we can have a good idea of the number of calls getting to the Speaker.

Contact: Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (call 717-783-3797 or email repbilldeweese@pahouse.net) What to Say: "I support SB 1250. As House Majority Leader, would you please tell Speaker Dennis O'Brien to assign SB 1250 to the Judiciary committee. SB 1250 deserves a vote so please do all that you can to see it pass."

Contact: Majority Whip Keith McCall (call 717-783-1375 or email kmccall@pahouse.net) What to Say: "I support SB 1250. Would you please tell Speaker Dennis O'Brien to assign SB 1250 to the Judiciary committee where it will be brought up for a vote in a timely fashion when it comes over from the Senate. SB 1250 deserves a vote so please do all that you can to see it pass."

Contact: your State Representative (Use our Citizen Action Center to find their name and contact information)What to Say: "Would you please support SB 1250 without any changes or amendments. Also, would you to tell your leaders in the House and Senate to allow it to come up for a vote."

Contact: your State Senator (Use our Citizen Action Center to find their name and contact information)What to Say: "Would you please support SB 1250 without any changes or amendment. How do you intend to vote on SB 1250?

Contact: Sen. Mike Brubaker (email mbrubaker@pasen.gov) and Sen. John Gordner (email jgordner@pasen.gov) What to Say: "Thank you so much for your extraordinary leadership on SB 1250"


Thank you for all your efforts to help protect marriage in Pennsylvania!

Marriage Protection Amendment Update

After the PA Marriage Protection Amendment, SB 1250, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 10-4 vote and the Appropriations Committee by a 18-8 vote, it ran into a vicious onslaught of opposition led by Sen. Vincent Fumo when it got to the full Senate. Numerous amendments unrelated to the institution of marriage were file by those opposed to the bill, and several weakening amendments were going to be offered to weaken the bill’s protections.

The vote to table the measure passed when Sen. Brubaker, prime sponsor of the bill, learned that it was destined to go to the House State Government Committee, whose chairwoman, Rep. Babette Josephs, has denounced the proposal and threatened to “kill” it in her committee.

We must pass SB 1250 in the Senate!! – Please continue to contact the Senate Members with the message – please bring the Marriage Amendment for a vote. It must pass both the Senate and House before June 30, so that it can pass a second time in next session and then the people of PA will have their say when it goes to popular vote as a referendum.

At this time 27 states have constitutional safeguards for marriage. We need to continue to educate the public on the need for an amendment to protect marriage in Pennsylvania.