Gay Marriage

Prop 8 opponents trying to overturn it

Drew McKissick — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:54:05 -0500

Well, the ballot boxes have barely been put away in California and the gay marriage crowd is now looking to that state's liberal, activist high court to overturn the will of the people.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's Attorney General on Monday urged the state Supreme Court to consider whether a gay marriage ban passed by voters this month was legal.

The state's top lawyer, former governor Jerry Brown, said the court should keep the ban in place while it considers the issue -- and it should rule quickly.

California's ban marked a major reversal for same-sex couples, who had won state Supreme Court approval to marry in the trend-setting state in May.

Only a handful of states, provinces and European countries recognize same-sex marriage and gay marriage advocates have demonstrated vocally around the country since the November 4 vote.

Isn't it interesting that these people are always looking to the courts to enact their agenda? So far the people of California has spoken twice on this issue. Once in the '90's with a state law (passed via referendum) that defined marriage as one man and one woman...which was recently thrown out in a 4-3 decision by their Supreme Court; and now in a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment (trumping state law and the Supreme Court) doing the same thing. A vote which passed by the way with the same 52%-48% margin of support that Obama had nationally.

Now gay marriage supporters (including govt. officials such as Gov. Schwarzenegger and AG "Moonbeam" Brown) want the court to say a constitutional amendment is, well, "unconstitutional". If that's declared to be the case, then most people would be forgiven for thinking that their input means nothing.

In other words, the government wants everyone to vote, just so long as they don't actually take this self-governance thing too seriously and think that anything this important is actually up to "the people".

California marriage amendment irony

Drew McKissick — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:34:25 -0500

Just thought I would point out one of the delicious pieces of irony in yesterday's voting. As it turned out, thankfully, the hard fought effort to get the marriage amendment passed in California was a success. At this point, it looks like it passed 52-48%....by about 1/2 million votes. (CNN exit polls here)

The interesting fact is, as with everywhere else in the country, black voter turnout was up...and, in California, black voters supported the amendment 70-30%...while whites opposed it 51-49%

In other words, it looks like black Obama supporters helped put it over the top, just as some liberals worried would happen. You gotta love it.

Marriage amendment campaign gains steam in California

Drew McKissick — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:30:25 -0400

Although social/cultural issues are getting little (if any) attention whatsoever in the current presidential election, the campaign to defend traditional marriage rolls on in California, Florida (likely to pass) and Arizona this year via proposed state constitutional amendments.

To date, such amendments have passed over 30 states with an average of about 70% of the vote, only failing in one state (in Arizona in 2006 by a few points, largely due to a poorly drafted amendment).

California is obviously the state that everyone's had their eyes on, for several reasons. First, because it's the biggest state in the country; second, it's home to the epicenter of the gay-culture universe, San Francisco...not to mention Hollywood and third, this is the first time such an amendment has sought to overturn the damage already done by a state court (having ruled gay marriage legal in that state by a one vote margin of its Supreme Court).

As mentioned previously, the pro-amendment forces, after having been down considerably for months, now have a slim lead in the polls, thanks in large part to running their first TV ad. And now, much to the consternation of liberals and the media, it turns out they've also got the deepest pockets. In some cases, with the help of...(oh no!)...Mormons! (Possibly contributing up to 75% of the 27 million raised so far). Even the Knights of Columbus have pitched in over a million.

The latest numbers how the pro-amendment forces with 27 million and the "no" group with 19 million. But before the liberals get away with tagging the conservatives as being the "big money" crowd, consider that 27 million came from 62,000 contributors...with 30,000 for the opposition.

The Mormons are even getting in on the ground game:

Mormons living outside California have been asked to volunteer for a telephone campaign to help pass a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in the state. ...

Church elder L. Whitney Clayton said members may be asked to call friends and family at home in California before the Nov. 4 election to encourage support for the measure. The out-of-state phone campaign would be on an "if-needed" basis.

Clayton, a liaison between the church and the coalition, also says many students attending church-owned universities have asked how they might help and could be enlisted to make calls. There are three branches of the church-owned Brigham Young University — in Utah, Hawaii and Idaho.

"In California, the phone trees are up and running. We just want to be able to help and one of the things we can do is we can organize," Clayton said in an interview Wednesday. ...

There are about 770,000 Mormon church members in California. ...

Its involvement in the California same-sex marriage debate this year began with a letter from church President Thomas S. Monson asking California Mormons to give their time and money to pass Proposition 8. Monson's letter has been read repeatedly in Mormon churches, and opponents of the forthcoming initiative have credited LDS members with giving the Yes on 8 camp an edge in donations and volunteers.

The church planned its appeal on Wednesday night with a satellite broadcast to church buildings in California and on the three Brigham Young campuses. Mormon leaders were scheduled to speak directly to members, with a particular focus being placed on reaching young married couples, single church members and those already active in the campaign, Clayton said. ...

"We also think it will be helpful to them to just be fortified in this last month," he said. "It's a political campaign, and time is short and there's a lot to do."

Oh my goodness. The gay marriage crowd - and liberals in general - out in LaLa Land have to being going absolutely apoplectic.

As an added bonus, the liberals are worried that the likely heavy turnout in the black community in support of Barack Obama will also lead to a net gain for the marriage amendment, given generally socially conservative views of blacks on the issue...leading libs to lament "black homophobia".

In the meantime, gays are "rushing to the alter" while there's still time.

Given the latest stunt on the part of the supporters of gay marriage, I guess I see their point. Get this:

SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 – In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.

Want to help out? Go to ProtectMarriage.com and pitch in.

Now if we could only get this kind of issue on the agenda in the Presidential campaign.

***

More: Michelle Malkin - Stop the ACLU - Bench Memos

Gay marriage for out-of-staters in Massachusetts

Drew McKissick — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:13:43 -0400

The issue of gay marriage just got a boost, courtesy of the Massachusetts Senate yesterday.

BOSTON (AP) — Gay couples from across the country are one step closer to a Massachusetts wedding.

The state Senate voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state. The law prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states.

The House is expected to vote on the repeal later this week. Gov. Deval Patrick, whose 18-year-old daughter announced publicly last month that she is a lesbian, would have 10 days to sign it.

Just another step down the slippery slope. But I do think it increases the chances of this becoming a "real" issue in the presidential campaign. Remember, traditional marriage amendments on are on the ballot in both California and Florida this year. Now you've got Massachusetts about to open its doors to gay marriage tourism...sending newly married gays back to their home states to start filing lawsuits.

Obama goes in spin-mode on gay marriage

Drew McKissick — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:18:50 -0400

Well, it seems now that Obama's doing a little backpedaling on the gay marriage thing. After having tripped up the other day by trying to woo evangelicals with talk about faith-based programs at the same time it came out that he sent a letter opposing the marriage amendment in California, his spokesperson is in full spin-mode. From the NY Times:

Mr. Obama made his position public in a letter he sent last week to the Alice B. Toklas L.G.B.T. Democratic Club, a San Francisco gay rights group.

“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,” wrote Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Well, that's pretty clear. We can disagree, but at least we know where he stands, right? Uh-huh. Read on.

But his campaign said that Mr. Obama’s opposition to the initiative, which will appear on the state’s November ballot, did not signal a change in position. He remains opposed to same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the campaign, said that Mr. Obama took the stance because “as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions.”

So he's opposed to same-sex marriage, but opposes making keeping it against the law. Opposing a state being able to keep it's current definition of marriage from being redefined by a one vote court majority.

Perhaps then Obama, or his spokesman, would be so kind as to provide some proposed text of a traditional marriage law that wouldn't "roll back civil rights", whatever that means.

The truth is that he wants to play that cagey liberal game of being for something without having to admit your for it. Meaning he'll say he's "for" gay civil unions/domestic partnerships which have all the same rights and benefits of marriage...so long as we don't call it a "marriage" yet and upset some of those "bitter" middle class voters who's votes he'll need in a few swing states in the American heartland.

He's hoping that they don't catch on before Election Day.

Gay marriage makes ballot in California

Drew McKissick — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:48:51 -0400

The pro-family conservatives in California met the first half of this years challenge on the issue of gay marriage - they got a traditional definition of marriage amendment on the ballot for this November...making California ground-zero in this debate for the next 6 months.

In fact, they got over 1.1 million signatures on petitions to get it on the ballot - over 400,000 more than they needed. A good sign for the energy and support they'll need in the campaign.

The bad news is that the folks out in California were forced to do this (in spite of having a defense of marriage state law) by their own judiciary....and the good news is that the judiciary is forcing them to do this. By that i mean that the State Supreme Court's recent 4-3 edict declaring gay marriage constitutional gives the pro-amendment folks all that much more gas to get this thing passed in November. And who knows, it might even make the Democrats worry a little about all that extra turnout from "values voters" to the point that they have to spend more money out there for Obama that could otherwise be spent in real swing states this fall.

The other bad news, not just for California but a lot of other states, is that the CA Supreme Court refused to stay the decision until after the election, (despite requests from 10 other state's Attorneys General)... which means we'll likely have thousands of gays getting "married" in California and running back to their home states and instigating law suits there... which means some of those cases will make tracks to the Supreme Court eventually, deciding whether or not one state has to recognize a gay marriage from another state. Meaning whether or not one state can decide for ALL states whether or not gay marriage should be legal.

If that's not enough reason for you to help make sure Obama's not the guy picking the next Supreme Court judge, I don't know what is.

Traditional marriage to be on ballot in California

Drew McKissick — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:28:12 -0400

Good news from the Golden State:

The sponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage in California said Monday they have gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

A coalition of religious groups called Protect Marriage collected more than 1.1 million signatures in support of the amendment, said Brian Brown, executive director of the California office of the National Organization for Marriage.

The initiative needs 694,354 signatures, or 8 percent of the votes cast in the last governor's race, to make it onto the ballot.

"We have gone against tremendous odds to do this, and now the voters in California will have the chance to protect marriage," Brown said.

Supporters of the Limit on Marriage initiative plan to deliver their signed petitions to county registrars this week, ahead of the April 28 submission deadline set by the California Secretary of State's Office. The signatures must be verified before the amendment can be approved for the election.

Get so many more signatures than required is a great win for those folks...and the list presents a ready made list of potential volunteers and contributors for the campaign. Just as important, having this issue on the ballot in California this fall might actually help put California in play in a presidential race for the first time in a long time. Maybe. Or at least maybe enough to worry the Dems into spending more money and time there than they otherwise would.

Marriage amendment news

Drew McKissick — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:12:59 -0500

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, a traditional definition of marriage amendment qualified for the ballot in Florida this coming November. Now comes the latest project - getting it onto the ballot in California.

More than 100,000 California voters have signed a petition to let the people decide the definition of marriage, following a Focus on the Family mailing to 120,000 voters.
“To have this number of petitions come back signed, to be counted … is truly extraordinary," Ron Prentice, executive director of the California Family Council, told Family News in Focus.
But there's more work to do. In order to put marriage on the November ballot, more than 1 million signatures are needed by April 1.
Prentice is working with ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of local, state and national groups, to join the 27 states that have constitutional protection for marriage. ProtectMarriage.com is putting forth a simple, one-sentence statement that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Californians can find out how they can help here.

Just as with Florida, having a marriage amendment on the ballot in California will be a bost for the GOP this fall. So if you know anyone out that way, spread the word and encourage them to sign (and promote) the petition.

And just in case you think this sort of thing doesn't really matter, take a look at what's happened in New York recently.

A New York appellate court ruled Friday that valid out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples must be legally recognized in New York, just as the law recognizes those of heterosexual couples solemnized elsewhere. Lawyers for both sides said the ruling applied to all public and private employers in the state.
Even though gay couples may not legally marry in New York, the appellate court in Rochester held that a gay couple’s 2004 marriage in Canada must be respected under the state’s longstanding “marriage recognition rule,” and that an employer’s denial of health benefits had discriminated against the couple on the basis of their sexual orientation.

In other words, just what conservatives have been saying all along (that judges will re-define marriage) will come to pass, unless the people of each state continue to take up the cause and legally define marriage as between a man and a woman in their state constitutions.

Florida marriage amendment makes the ballot

Drew McKissick — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:37:15 -0500

This is big:

The Florida Division of Elections announced over the weekend that it certified 649,346 signatures seeking to place the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment on the state's Nov. 4 ballot. Conservative activists collected 92,000 signatures in the last two weeks leading up to the Feb. 1 deadline to ensure they exceeded the 611,099 needed to place the measure on the ballot.
If the amendment passes, Florida would recognize marriage as "the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife," and "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." The latter provision would protect Florida from having to recognize out of state same-sex marriage licenses.

Marriage amendments have passed in 27 out of 28 states where they have been on the ballot, and I doubt Florida will be an exception. And the fact that this will draw more socially conservative voters to the polls in November is good news for the GOP this fall, given Florida's status as a key swing state in presidential elections. Again, good news.

Maryland high court says "no" to gay marriage

Drew McKissick — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:31:28 -0400

Well, believe it or not, we've got another judicial victory for traditional marriage...and it's from Maryland, (which made it a coin flip).

BALTIMORE (AP) — Plaintiffs vowed to take the fight over gay marriage in Maryland to the Legislature after the state's highest court threw out a suit challenging a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In a 4-3 decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that the state's 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights guaranteed by the state constitution. The court also found that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.

A good decision, on a critical social issue. But note the slim, one-vote margin..which joins a string of other such slim margin examples on critical cases in our judiciary...which underlines the importance of electing politicians that will appoint good judges...but I digress.

Also note that this is the latest in a string of victories all across the country for the common sense opinion that it's not up to the judiciary to invent/discover new rights (such as gay marriage) in our various constitutions. Such lunacy belongs to the people.

In the course of rendering their decision, (and doing the right thing), they felt it necessary to deflect a little bit of heat and remind everyone of some basics civics, essentially saying, 'Hey guys, it's not our fault. Talk to the legislature!".

"Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority. ...

And here it comes

...Legislators on both sides of the debate predicted action on the issue in the next session. The heavily Democratic legislature has passed several gay-rights laws in recent years but has not voted on legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions. ...
State Sen. Richard Madaleno, who is openly gay, said he plans to introduce a bill to allow same-sex marriage. He also expects a proposal to create civil unions.
"I think we'll have a lengthy discussion next session about what the options are for legal recognition for gay people," Madaleno said.
Don Dwyer, one of the General Assembly's most conservative members, said he would introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as "insurance." ...

Then there's this:

Many of the plaintiffs have children, and they argue that their families are being denied the stability and legal protection that comes from having married parents. L isa Kebreau, 39, and partner Mikki Mozelle, 31, who live in Riverdale, have three children — ages 20 months, 2 and 17.
"We really wanted them to understand how normal and good their family is — that their family is just like any other family," Kebreau said.

Uh, no it's not "just like any other family". Also, this is why gay adoption shouldn't be allowed in the first place, because without it they wouldn't have the children to make such a claim to begin with. And speaking of children, note this nugget from the decision:

The court also found that the state has an interest in promoting procreation and that the General Assembly "has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit."

Which is what this issue comes down to, or should come down to. The children. Or, more precisely, the next generation of citizens. For all the talk about rights, it's time to recognize society's collective right (via the state) to promote its future "general welfare" via the next generation.