Friday, October 27, 2006

Democrats Go On Record In Support Of Homosexual Marriage

Activists pushing for legalizing homosexual marriage say they will not stop with just homosexual marriage. They demand more. They want government and societal acceptance, approval and financial support for many kinds of relationships, including polygamy. And the Democratic Party says it will help them achieve their goal.

Activists say that marriage is "not the only worthy form of family or relationship," and it "should not be legally or economically privileged above others." The statement was signed by 270 homosexual rights activists and heterosexual allies.
Other kinds of relationships that they say deserve marriage-like benefits include "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner (polygamy)" and "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The goal of the activists is the destruction of traditional marriage.
The Democrat National Committee has developed plans to help the homosexual activists achieve their goal. Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokesman Danien LaVera says the DNC has developed a five-point plan to help homosexuals block any legislation which prohibits homosexual marriage, and to push homosexual marriage.
The first successful effort occurred in Illinois where the Democrats helped the activists keep the marriage protection law off the ballot in that state, including a donation of $10,000.
LaVera said the DNC strongly opposes efforts to ban homosexual marriage by amending the federal or state constitutions and that the Democratic party plans to step up efforts to promote pro-homosexual marriage bills in several states.
Democratic parties in eight states have already adopted platforms endorsing homosexual marriage bills. They include New York, California, Washington, Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts and Hawaii.
Here is the 5-point plan LaVera said the Democratic National Committee has developed to fight for homosexual marriage:
1. Labeling efforts to ban homosexual marriage as "divisive" ploys by the Republicans and others to deflect voter attention from other important issues..."
2. Begin a "party-building" operation which includes specific training for state Democratic operatives in all 50 states on how to campaign against ballot measures banning homosexual marriage.
3. Working closely with the gay group National Stonewall Democrats to "develop strategy and talking points' to combat state measures defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
4. Working cooperatively with homosexual organizations fighting ballot measures in each state where they surface, providing campaign advice, expertise, and logistical and financial support.
5. Empowering and organizing homosexual communities around the country with the help of the DNC's new homosexual outreach organizer Brian Bond.
Take Action
1. Sign the NO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE pledge. Officials of both parties will be notified of the number who sign the pledge. We will not provide either party with your name or email address.
2. Please forward this email to friends and family alerting them about the plans of the Democratic party to help legalize homosexual marriage and abolish the traditional family.
3. Tell your friends about the efforts of the Democratic Party.

"We will be pushing to have the language of our marriage statute to be amended to refer to just any two people as a couple, rather than man and wife."

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, October 25th that same-sex couples are entitled to the same "rights" of marriage as heterosexual couples are.

Read the full story HERE.
In a press release earlier today, condemned the New Jersey Supreme Court for its decision Wednesday suggesting that the New Jersey state Constitution grants a "right" to same sex unions.
"The New Jersey Court joins the Massachusetts Court in legislating from the bench," said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute and spokesman,
However, while the decision wasn't all that traditional marriage advocates could've hoped for, it was not as disastrous as the 2003 Goodridge decision. It is important to note that even in their attempt to rule in favor of same-sex unions, the New Jersey Court affirmed that it is the responsibility of the legislature to decide whether they pass some sort of civil union, or amend their marriage laws to include homosexual couples. This is similar to the ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court that brought about that state's civil union law. The decision lies with the legislature as the representatives of the people. We the people of Massachusetts deserve that same chance to weigh in and have a say in the definition of marriage.
Recent decisions regarding same sex marriage from the high courts of New York, California and the state of Washington each upheld the fundamental principle that marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation and the nurturing of children. As such, they have found a compelling interest in preserving traditional marriage because the best environment for raising children is in a home with a mother and father. The New Jersey decision departs from recent precedent and calls on the state legislature to amend the current statutory scheme to afford rights and benefits equal to marriage to same sex couples within 180 days, whether in the form of "marriage" or in a separate legal "civil union" statute.
Matt Daniels is a pro-family advocate with Alliance for Marriage, another group that has been pushing for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In a recent Associated Press interview he commented that, with this ruling, the high court in New Jersey has given state lawmakers an unacceptable choice.
"The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the Legislature," Daniels asserts, "and saying under court order, 'You may choose between two bullets, which are in the chambers of this gun -- one is gay marriage, the other is gay marriage in all but name -- and you get to 'choose.'" However, he insists, "That's not a choice. That's not the democratic process." again calls on the Massachusetts Legislature to carry out their constitutional duty and vote on the Marriage Amendment. also calls on the United States Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment so that out of step courts around the country can't create a marriage "hodge-podge," weakening the institution of marriage for everyone and creating a tangle of lawsuits that will be fought indefinitely.
Help me understand something. What is wrong with this statement from Laura Pople, president of the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition?:

"We will be pushing to have the language of our marriage statute to be amended to refer to just any two people as a couple, rather than man and wife."

I have mentioned time and time again on this blog the comments that the radical homosexual community has said about marriage which echos what Ms. Pople is saying. This community is taking America down a slippery slope with the advocation of any two people taking part in a marriage. This will naturally, and as silly as it may sound, lead to lawfull marriages between animal and man or women or children and man or women. This is simply not right. Just by this fact alone, this nonsense needs to come to an end.
Now more than ever we need to stand tall for traditional marriage. Please join me at the State House on November 9th and let's show the legislature we demand our right to vote on marriage.
Thank you,

Friday, October 20, 2006

Pro-Marriage Message at Root of Employee's Dismissal

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

A Virginia man has allegedly been fired from his job for supporting a state ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Luis Padilla was reportedly terminated from his employment at a Cargill Foods plant in Harrisonburg because of a written message on the rear window of his pickup truck that read: "Please, vote for marriage on Nov. 7." That is the day when voters in Virginia will be considering a proposed amendment to the state constitution protecting traditional marriage.
According to the Daily-News Record in Harrisonburg, Padilla -- who worked in Cargill's human resources office -- was dismissed for insubordination when he refused to remove the message, which company officials could be considered harassment. He apparently had removed the sign when first requested, then later posted it again and parked his truck outside the company parking lot. The newspaper report indicates the former Cargill employee was trying to reach an accommodation with the company about the message when he was fired.
The Family Foundation of Virginia sent a letter to Cargill, calling for Padilla's reinstatement. However, the large private company has denied the request, saying "Cargill is not required to allow Mr. Padilla to impose his beliefs on his co-workers." Victoria Cobb, executive director of the Family Foundation, says Cargill is engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
"We are seeing something that is starting to happen across America and even here in Virginia, where political correctness has run amok. That's the simplest way to put it," says Cobb. "The legal letter that we have received back from Cargill's legal department has basically said that they have these 'Valuing Differences' initiatives and they have this 'Everyone Matters' policy; and yet, apparently, Mr. Padilla's views are not respected."
Cobb believes Padilla, a father of two who is a native of Honduras and is in America on a work permit, is the victim of viewpoint discrimination and is being denied his right to free speech.
"If nothing else, even if there is not legal recourse the way we'd like for there to be legal recourse, there is absolutely a sense that this is intolerable behavior from a company," Cobb states. She also feels it is "devastating to our democracy" when there are individuals who believe, like Cargill, that simply posting a sign in a car window constitutes "imposing" one's beliefs on others.
"It is abundantly clear that those who seek to impose same-sex 'marriage' on society are not at all interested in tolerance of other viewpoints," says Cobb in a press release. "And they are willing to go so far as to destroy a man's family and take his livelihood to get their way."
A spokesman for the Family Foundation-affiliated Valley Family Forum echoes those sentiments. "This action exposes the hypocrisy of people who claim to stand for 'tolerance' but who instead do all they can to silence all opposing views," says Dean Welty. "In this case, those who accuse Mr. Padilla of 'harassment' have themselves become the 'harassers."
According to Cobb, who is also a spokesperson for the group, Padilla has not yet decided whether to file a lawsuit against Cargill, noting Virginia law gives employers a great deal of latitude when it comes to firing employees. She says she is hopeful legal action will not be necessary and, toward that end, encourages Cargill to reinstate Padilla immediately.
On Election Day 2006, voters in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin will consider constitutional amendments declaring marriage to be only the union of one man and one woman. The president of the group Americans for Truth believes the amendments should pass with little difficulty in five of those eight states.
"Arizona and Wisconsin are more of a battleground," Peter LaBarbera asserts, "and then there's a special situation in Colorado where there's a pro-domestic partner initiative that was very smartly, by the way, put up by homosexual activists. So those are the three states to watch. I think the rest of the states will pass handily."
In the case in all of the 20 states where a marriage amendment has been adopted by voters, the average approval rating has been 68 percent: SEE CHART

So, my question is if 40% of the country has passed inititives to ban same-sex "marriages" via a vote from the people, and marriage has been understood and governed by our countries laws to be between a man and a women, why is it so awful for Mr. Padilla to express his views on normative practices?

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Pro-Family Groups Hail Calif. Court's Ruling Upholding Traditional Marriage

In a closely watched case challenging California's marriage laws, the California Court of Appeals rejected same-sex marriage in a 2 to 1 decision this past Friday October 6, 2006. The pro-family legal organization Liberty Counsel, representing Campaign for California Families, presented argument before the court.

The majority's opinion stated that the same-sex couples in these appeals were asking the Court of Appeals to "recognize a new right," but that courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, "especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution" as marriage. "In the final analysis," the judges stated, "the court is not in the business of defining marriage."
The majority opinion also declared that the lower trial court's decision "essentially redefined marriage to encompass unions that have never before been considered as such in this state." The appellate court's decision went on to state that it is "beyond the judiciary's realm of authority to redefine a statute or to confer a new right where none previously existed."
Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, was pleased with the California Court of Appeals' ruling. He says the court "followed the lead of other courts around the United States in recognizing that judges should not rewrite marriage laws with the stroke of a pen. The state of California did not create marriage and judges should not redefine it."
The marital union between a man and a woman is a unique relationship, Staver observes, one that "uniquely fosters responsible procreation" and contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, children, and the state. "To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples would abolish marriage," the attorney contends. "The result," he says, "would be nonsensical and would have devastating effects on children and society."
Marriage Victory Hailed as Great Day for California and the Nation
Pro-family and religious leaders, conservative groups and public policy and legal organizations around the U.S. are celebrating the California Court of Appeals' ruling and applauding those who helped secure the court victory. On hearing of the decision, California attorney Richard D. Ackerman -- who was among the first to sue San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for authorizing the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses -- remarked, "This is a great day for California and the nation."
Ackerman says while so many courts have failed to respect the system of checks and balances America's founders established, "California proved itself capable of reading the Constitution for what it actually means and was intended to be." He believes the ruling will do much to restore the public's faith in the nation's judiciary, which has lost much respect due to "errant judges wishing to make their own law," he observes.
The California attorney says his state and the rest of the nation owe a great debt of gratitude to Liberty Counsel and its attorneys Mat Staver and Robert Tyler and to the Alliance Defense Fund. These organizations and attorneys, Ackerman notes, took on the issue of homosexual marriage "regardless of being called hateful, intolerant, and the like. ADF and Liberty Counsel saw these battles through to the end."
Another legal group, the Pro-Family Law Center (PFLC), also commended the legal team that argued the case, noting in a recent statement that the ADF and Liberty Counsel attorneys "always saw this as an issue about the democratic process." No state, PFLC asserts, "should ever be controlled by radical activists, like Gavin Newsom, who happen to be in political positions of power."
Traditional Marriage Not Yet Safe, Activists Warn
But although coalition spokesman Randy Thomasson called the California Court of Appeals' ruling "a great decision upholding the right of California voters to protect the natural and beautiful institution of marriage for a man and a woman," he warns that the victory might be short lived. He says the California Supreme Court could still create homosexual "marriages" next year when this case is appealed.
Thomasson points out that the state high court already has three justices who support the notion of same-sex marriage: Judges Kennard, Werdegar, and Corrigan. "They only need one more justice on their side to destroy the time-honored institution of marriage," he says. "Therefore," the California activist continues, "the only certain way to fully and permanently protect marriage in California is to place the amendment on the ballot to override the judges and politicians."
Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Action's Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy, agrees that one-man, one-woman marriage in California remains vulnerable, as it does in other states due to the ongoing efforts of activist judges and elected officials to push same-sex marriage, even when the voters have overwhelmingly rejected it.
The California's Court of Appeals' decision upheld traditional marriage, Minnery notes, just as courts in Georgia, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Washington have recently done. Thus the California court "demonstrated a proper understanding of the role of courts by declaring that the right to change public policy is the realm of the state Legislature," he says.
But now, the Focus on the Family Action official contends, California lawmakers need to respect the will of the voters as expressed in 2000 when they approved Proposition 22, by protecting one-man, one-woman marriage with a state marriage amendment. Meanwhile, he says Congress needs to pass a federal marriage amendment, to ensure the uniformity of the definition of marriage nationwide.
"Despite these encouraging marriage decisions, marriage cannot remain vulnerable to the whim of judges who could impose their own will on society," Minnery insists. Marriage, he says, must be protected both in the states' and the federal constitution.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Parental Rights & the Constitution of America... or is it of Europe?

Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches constitutional law and chairman and general counsel of Home School Legal Defense Association, wrote an incredible piece for WorldNetDaily focusing on how the Supreme Court wants to open its interpretation of the constitution based on international law. It is an eye-opening read:

A recent article in the American Journal of International Law tells this story:
In the keynote address to the 2003 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, Justice Stephen Breyer declared that "comparative analysis emphatically is relevant to the task of interpreting constitutions and enforcing human rights." Justice Breyer concluded that nothing could be "more exciting for an academic, practitioner, or judge than the global legal enterprise that is now upon us." In a room filled with international lawyers and academics, he received a home court standing ovation.
Breyer's use of the term "comparative analysis" means that the Supreme Court should use international law sources to help interpret American law, including the U.S. Constitution. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist said it even more directly: "Now that constitutional law is solidly grounded in so many countries, it is time that the United States courts begin looking to the decisions of other constitutional courts to aid in their own deliberative process."
Read the full article Here
So, to put things into perspective relative to what my focus here on Know Thy Facts is all about, there has been many comments posted suggesting that the interpretation of law of the U.S. constitution is based on the countries morals. Well, if you think that take is the truth, and is FAR from the truth, then how would you like to interpret the U.S. constitution based upon the way other countries interpret their constitutions? Think about that and let me know if "We The People" really means anything to you now.

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from