Below is an email I got recently with information regarding a Federal Judge upholding traditional marriage. Yes, even federal Judges are supporting traditional marriage even though the liberal media does not publicize it.
From Brian Brown of National Organization for Marriage:
Federal Judge: No Right to Gay Marriage! NOM Marriage News, August 9, 2012
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Dear Marriage Supporter,
After a week dominated by the Chick-fil-A grassroots support movement there is more goodnews for marriage that you will never hear on the nightly news. Earlier this week another federal judge rejected the claim that there is aconstitutional right to gay marriage!
A same-sex couple tried to get Hawaii's marriage laws struck down on the grounds that they are allegedly irrational and rooted in bias towards gay people.
Hawaii, you will recall, was the original seat of the litigation wars seeking to impose gay marriage upon theAmerican people. The population of the blue state of Hawaii responded in 1998 by overwhelmingly passing (69 percent to 29 percent) the very firstmarriage amendment, clarifying that the legislature has the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Now a federal judge has affirmed the right of the people of Hawaii to make that determination—and in the process rejected theargument that marriage is rooted in bias or bigotry:
"Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing.... It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure."
"In this situation," the court continued, "to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage 'would short-circuit' the legislative actions that have been taking place inHawaii."
Bottom line: "Because Hawaii's marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution."
The majority of courts, as well as the majority of citizens, recognize that our marriage laws are not rooted inhatred towards gay people or anyone else! I wish more gay marriage advocates could see this.
This same misperception was on display as the MSM tried to downplay Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, because there was no way to cover thestory without showing the huge outpouring of support for marriage and for Dan Cathy's right to his opinion. On Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day even FoxNews' Shepard Smith went so far as to urge viewers to avoid "National Day of Intolerance"
Most Americans—even those who support gay marriage—simply do not buy the extremist rhetoric emanating from Chick-fil-A opponents that opposition to gay marriage is bigoted, hateful and illegitimate.
Four big-city mayors, though—people with power—disgraced themselves by suggesting just that.
Rahm Emanuel, a former key White House official who is now mayor of Chicago, was in someways the worst offender. His claim that Chick-fil-A violates something called "Chicago Values" produced pushback very close to home.
It was too much even for the very liberal Chicago Tribune:
Emanuel and [Chicago alderman] Moreno have changed their tone a bit over the last week, in the face of growing national criticism. But they are still exhibiting intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Moreno has called Cathy's comments"bigoted." Emanuel asserted, "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values."
Mayor, many of your constituents do not support same-sex marriage. They have a heartfelt view on this. They are not bigots. But youare telling them they don't belong in their city.
Take a moment to consider what Cardinal Francis George has written: "I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicago an never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?"
Moreno seemed to spoil for a fight with the cardinal, calling his comments "disingenuous" and "irresponsible."
Emanuel and Moreno ought to recognize they are losing people across the political spectrum ... because they are being intolerant.
But not all were so perceptive: this display of intolerance by high government officials was actually praised by the major organizers of the gay marriage movement.
Boston Mayor Tom Menino eventually may have backtracked on his suggestion that he "...would prevent a Chick-fil-A franchise..." from opening in his city, but not before major mainstream gay rights groups endorsed and applauded his stance.
For instance, even as most Americans were uniting over a great chicken sandwich and the idea of tolerance for all, the Human Rights Campaign doubled down on using government power to exclude supporters of traditional marriage, calling on more public officials to express similar views to Menino's.
The HRC said, and I quote:
We applaud Mayor Menino forcalling out Chick-fil-A's anti-LGBT practices. We have been asking people to make their own decisions about whether to continue supporting Chick-fil-A based on the facts available, and Mayor Menino has done just that. Mayor Menino's rebuke of Chick-fil-A sends a strong messages[sic] that their habit of supporting hateful organizations that demonize LGBT Americans are out-of-step with not just Bostonians, but the majority of fair-minded Americans.Chick-fil-A is on the wrong side of history, and we look forward to seeing more and more elected officials and businesses speak out against their discriminatory practices.
Meanwhile, far from backing down, a major Chicago gay rights group filed multiple human rights complaints against Chick-fil-A charging that Cathy's personal views violate Illinois civil rights laws.
Ironically, Anthony Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda ,said in their press release announcing the filing of the complaint, that Chick-fil-A used to be one of the family's "favorite places to eat"until Cathy's statements made them feel "completely unwelcome."
Yet,Chick-fil-A has made clear that its policy is welcoming to everyone: the only one excluding Martinez from eating there is Martinez himself and those like him, who are blinded by intolerance in the public square to any opposing views.
I think the Chicago Tribune is right: the gay marriage movement is increasingly demonstrating that the power it has is not going to be usedto expand the liberty of all but to suppress dissent.
While Rahm Emanuel chargesahead, President Obama is being curiously silent, not only about Chick-fil-A, but about reports that the Democrats are going to endorse gay marriagein the party platform: Susan Crabtree of the Washington Times reports:
Democrats are asking supporters to "stand with" President Obama and the Democratic Party in solidarity on gay marriage — even though the White House and Mr. Obama's campaign repeatedly have declined to say whether the president supports efforts to write a gay-marriage plank in the party's platform.
In an opening line of an email to supporters with the subject line "Are You Proud?" Mike Ryan, the policy director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is clearly excited about the efforts to include a gay-marriage plank in the party's platform thisyear.
"The Democratic National Convention is moving forward with a plank embracing marriage equality as part of our 2012 platform!" he writes.
Both the White House and the President's campaign have declined to say whether the President supports adding the plank, or whether hebelieves doing so would hurt Democratic candidates in swing states.
Enthusiastic private fundraising emails combined with public silence in the mainstream media: what does that tell us? It tells us that the White House knows support for gay marriage is not a winner with the public.
WaPo's The Fix confirms this fact:
Americans remain just as divided on gay marriage as they were before President Obama's announcement in early May he now publicly supported it.
The Pew Research Center poll shows views of gay marriage remain basically unchanged since April, right before Obama announced his supportfor gay marriage — a reversal from his past public opposition. Support has gone from 47 percent to 48 percent since April, while opposition ticked up from 43 percent to 44 percent. Neither is even close to statistically significant."
More significantly, one-third of Democrats continue to oppose gay marriage, and 14 percent say they do so strongly.
Rev. Bill Owens (who serves as NOM's liaison to the black churches) and his wife Deborah have been organizing black pastors who oppose gay marriage as leaders of the Coalition of African American Pastors.
With support for same-sex marriage lagging in the black community, we expect more major hit pieces like Lisa Miller's in the Washington Post: Miller accused Rev. Owens, who has organized a distinguished group of black pastors in three different press conferences, of being merely "astroturf".
But the MSM cannot change the facts: large numbers of Americans, including black Christians who are core Democrats, are very disturbedby President Obama's stance endorsing gay marriage, and they are calling on him to be faithful to their views and values.
Here's a Scripps Howard story, one of many on the black pastors organizing effort:
Support for same-sex marriageis now in the Democratic Party preliminary platform. Once approved by the full platform committee and voted on at the convention, same-sex marriage will have the party's formal support.
But as Democrats institutionalize their support for same sex-marriage, their relationship with the party's most loyal constituency, black Americans, becomes increasingly uneasy.
A new survey just released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows 65 percent of Democrats support same-sex marriage compared to just 40 percent of blacks.
Agroup of 3,700-plus black pastors, the Coalition of African-American Pastors, under the leadership of the Rev. William Owens, has moved to formally oppose the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama on this issue.
The group is spearheading a "Mandate for Marriage" campaign to gather 100,000 signatures on a petition declaring support for traditional marriage. The petition also calls for Obama "to repudiate his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right."
We will continue to work with people of all races, creeds, and political parties who support marriage.
Thank you for all you've made possible. With God's help, we will continue tostand—and not only stand, but triumph!
Faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
From Wikipedia:
Amendments that grant legislative authority to ban same-sex marriage
| State | Year | Support vote % | Title | Amendment |
| Hawaii | 1998 | 69%[7][8] | Constitutional Amendment 2[7] | The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.[9] |
Amendments that ban same-sex marriage
| State | Year | Support vote % | Title | Amendment (in relevant part) |
| Alaska | 1998 | 68%[10] | Ballot Measure 2, Joint Resolution 42[10] | To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.[11] |
| Nevada | 2000, 2002N-[2] | 69.6%; 67.1%N-[2] | Nevada Question No. 2[12] | Only a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.[13] |
| Mississippi | 2004 | 86%[14] | Mississippi Amendment 1[14] | Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman.[15] |
| Missouri | 2004 | 72%[16] | Constitutional Amendment 2[17] | To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.[18] |
| Montana | 2004 | 67%[14] | Montana Initiative 96[14] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.[19] |
| Oregon | 2004 | 57%[14] | Oregon Ballot Measure 36[20] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.[21] |
| Colorado | 2006 | 56%[22] | Colorado Amendment 43[23] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.[23] |
| Tennessee | 2006 | 81%[22] | Tennessee Amendment 1[24] | The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state.[24] |
| Arizona | 2008 | 56%[25] | Arizona Proposition 102[26] | Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.[26] |
| California | 2008 | 52%[25] | California Proposition 8[27] | Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.[27] |
Amendments that ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but not other contracts
| State | Year | Support vote % | Title | Amendment (in relevant part) |
| Nebraska | 2000 | 70%[28] | Initiative Measure 416[28] | Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.[29] |
| Arkansas | 2004 | 75%[14] | Constitutional Amendment 3[30] | (1) Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. (2) Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas.[31] |
| Georgia | 2004 | 76%[14] | Constitutional Amendment 1[32] | (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage.[33] |
| Kentucky | 2004 | 75%[14] | Constitutional Amendment 1[34] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[35] |
| Louisiana | 2004 | 78%[14] | Constitutional Amendment 1[36] | Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[37] |
| North Dakota | 2004 | 73%[14] | North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1[38] | Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.[39] |
| Ohio | 2004 | 62%[14] | State Issue 1[40] | Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.[41] |
| Oklahoma | 2004 | 76%[14] | State Question 711[42] | A. Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.[43] |
| Utah | 2004 | 66%[14] | Constitutional Amendment 3[44] | Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.[45] |
| Kansas | 2005 | 70%[46] | Proposed Amendment 1[47] | (a) Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. (b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.[48] |
| Texas | 2005 | 76%[49] | Proposition 2[49] | (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.[50] |
| Alabama | 2006 | 81%[51] | Sanctity of Marriage Amendment (Amendment 774)[52] | No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex... A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.[52] |
| Idaho | 2006 | 63%[22] | Idaho Amendment 2[22] | A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.[53] |
| South CarolinaN-[3] | 2006 | 78%[22] | South Carolina Amendment 1[22] | A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State...shall not recognize...any other domestic union, however denominated.[54] |
| South Dakota | 2006 | 52%[22] | South Dakota Amendment C[22] | Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.[55] |
| Wisconsin | 2006 | 59%[22] | Wisconsin Referendum 1[22] | Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.[56] |
| Florida | 2008 | 62%[25] | Florida Amendment 2[57] | Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.[57] |
| North Carolina | 2012 | 61%[58] | North Carolina Amendment 1 | Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.[59] |
Amendments that ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other contracts
| State | Year | Support vote % | Title | Amendment |
| Michigan | 2004 | 59%[14] | State Proposal - 04-2[60] | To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.[61][62] |
| Virginia | 2006 | 57%[63] | Marshall-Newman Amendment[63] | That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.[64] |
No comments:
Post a Comment