Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    gay marriage Tag

    Now that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage has been made, liberals have set their sights on destroying the language used to describe traditional marriages. Pete Kasperowicz of the Washington Examiner reports:
    Dems declare war on words 'husband,' 'wife' More than two dozen Democrats have proposed legislation that would eliminate the words "husband" and "wife" from federal law. Those "gendered terms" would be replaced by "gender-neutral" words like "spouse" or "married couple," according to the bill from Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. "The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts," Capps said. "Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages." The Supreme Court ruled in June that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution means all states have to license same-sex marriages, a ruling that effectively ended the same-sex marriage debate in America. Capps said her bill was aimed at taking the next step, which is to ensure the United States Code "reflects the equality of all marriages."

    Those fearful Obergefell v. Hodges could spell trouble for religious liberty were validated much sooner than anticipated. Less than 48 hours after the decision was handed down, New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer called for the end of tax exemptions for religious institutions. And the piecemeal dismemberment on religious liberties continues. Now infamous for their intolerance of Christianity, Oregon continues to be ground zero for the Biblical Principles vs. Ideological Fascism showdown. National Review's David French explains an emerging problem for Oregonian pastors seeking liability insurance.
    Churches, like virtually every functioning corporation, protect against liability risks and the potentially ruinous costs of litigation through liability insurance. With same-sex marriage now recognized as a constitutional right — and with news of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries awarding a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for “emotional, mental and physical suffering” after a Christian bakery refused to bake their wedding cake — pastors are reaching out to insurance companies to make sure they’re covered. And at least one insurer has responded with a preemptory denial: no coverage if a church is sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.

    We have covered the slippery slope that leads to polygamist marriage many times, long before the recent Supreme Court ruling: Now there is a post-SCOTUS story about how Montana polygamist family applies for marriage license:
    BILLINGS - Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own. We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

    Why, Mr. Sulu? WHY? George Takei of Star Trek fame made a wild accusation in an interview with Phoenix-based Fox affiliate. The televised portion of the interview went as you'd expect: long-time gay rights advocate is thrilled with advances in gay rights. "We're overjoyed, we're proud, and we feel fully American," said Takei. George discussed having to stay in the closet so he could have a career in Hollywood and the disappointment he felt when Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed California's gay marriage legislation. "We're doing this for the straight couples of today because they're going to having the gay babies of tomorrow and they won't have to have those discussions." The televised interview:

    Out of the sea of rainbow-frocked Facebook profile photos, corporate logos, and colorfully lit buildings emerged a seemingly innocuous black and white video. With a mission to, "educate and inspire Americans of all faiths to prioritize the issues of life, faith, and family," Catholic Vote is the brains behind the video that has publications like Ad Week up in arms. Billed with the hashtag #SpeakTruthWithLove and filmed as a coming out video of sorts, 'Not Alone' illuminates the flip-side side of the gay marriage coin -- those who believe in traditional marriage. "I am a little nervous about people hearing that I am this way and people thinking, well, you know, she's not welcome here," says one woman. "Most people probably already think I'm weird anyway, so I don't think society's impression of me is going to change drastically based on one or two discoveries that come to light after this video," expresses another. "It's pretty scary, you know? You wonder how many people can I really, truly, honestly be open with?" The big confession? "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Take a look:

    Charles Krauthammer appeared on the O'Reilly Factor last night and was asked by Bill O'Reilly to name three reasons for the recent rapid changes in America, with a focus on recent U.S. Supreme Court cases. Krauthammer cited culture as one of the reasons and he's absolutely right. Andrew Breitbart frequently voiced his belief that politics is downstream from culture. Watch the entire exchange below: Krauthammer recently called the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage a loss for democracy.

    If you had asked me twenty years ago to predict what the 21st century would hold in store, “religious wars” probably wouldn’t have been tops on my list. But it should have been. Right now we're seeing many forms of religious war. The most obvious has raged between radical Islam and everybody else. Yes, radical Muslims are somewhat of a minority within Islam; but they’re a huge, activist, vocal, sometimes violent, determined, and ruthless minority, they’ve been fighting the fight for the better part of a century (centuries, that is,) and have really stepped it up since their victory in Iran in 1979. During Obama's time in office their threat has grown in numbers, in strength, and in barbarity. I wrote that it’s a war “between radical Islam and everybody else.” The war against the Jews has been going on for a long time, with Israel/Palestine as the epicenter (that war isn’t just a religious one, but it certainly is a religious one as well as a political one). The war against the Hindus also is of great antiquity. The ancient war against Christians took somewhat of a breather in Western Europe after the Siege of Vienna. In recent years, however, radical Islam’s revived war against Christians has reached a violent fever pitch.

    Forty-eight hours after the Supreme Court's monumental gay marriage decision, and progressives are already calling for an end to tax exemptions for churches. Anticipating the Supreme Court's eventual ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, Senator Mike Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador introduced the First Amendment Defense Act. The bill would protect religious institutions who, for religious beliefs, do not actively participate in gay wedding ceremonies. In an op-ed published two weeks ago in the Deseret News, Sen. Lee explained:
    This is a bill that would prohibit the federal government from penalizing individuals or institutions on the basis that they act in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The First Amendment Defense Act, which Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, will introduce in the House of Representatives, would prevent any agency from denying a federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license or certification to an individual or institution for acting on their religious beliefs about marriage.
    Supreme Court Gay Marriage Oral Argument Fox News Tax Exemption After hearing the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, Sen. Lee was most disturbed by a question asked by Justice Alito.

    In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision, much of social media instantly descended into a mob of gleefulness, unrestrained by reason or critical thinking. People were so ecstatic at the arrival of nationwide same-sex marriage that they could not realize what they were losing in the process. Last Friday, the Supreme Court stole from them, and all of us, something fundamental: the right to govern ourselves. The decision last week was not about whether gay marriage is a good or a bad idea. Reasonable people can disagree about that. The question was: who decides? Do the people decide by debate and deliberation, through referendums, legislative action, protests, and other democratic activity? Or do nine lawyers decide the issue by majority vote, without accountability to the people? Justice Kennedy’s opinion -- which reads like a sociological treatise rather than a legal judgement -- is nothing less than a sweeping assertion that constitutional text and history can be dispensed with when making judicial determinations.

    Today, The NY Times turned its entire front page above the fold to celebrating yesterday's Supreme Court decision on gay marriage: NY Times Supreme Court Gay Marriage Headline Front Page Many national and major regional papers did the same. But is any diversity of news coverage permitted on such a huge cultural victory? If you want to know what the future of the post-SCOTUS SSM culture war looks like, take a look at this tweet by former MSM exec. Betsy Fischer Martin (h/t @bryanjacoutot) complaining that a north Louisiana paper had a larger headline about a local pageant than the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. The Supreme Court decision was front page, above the fold, right hand side, double column, and was followed just below it with another report about the impact of the decision. But that a local pageant story had more column space apparently was unacceptable:

    Today's ruling in the Obergefell same-sex marriage case sent shockwaves rolling across the nation. Fox News correspondent Shannon Bream read the decision on the air as the crowd outside the Court cheered: The scene outside the Supreme Court right now is kind of a circus:

    Possibly as soon as Thursday morning, but certainly by early next week, we will know how the Supreme Court rules on the issue of whether denying same-sex couples the ability to marry violates the U.S. Constitution. Lyle Denniston at ScotusBlog summarized the case as follows:
    Taking on a historic constitutional challenge with wide cultural impact, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon [January 16, 2015] agreed to hear four new cases on same-sex marriage. The Court said it would rule on the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state.... The Court fashioned the specific questions it is prepared to answer, but they closely tracked the two core constitutional issues that have led to a lengthy string of lower-court rulings striking down state bans. As of now, same-sex marriages are allowed in thirty-six states, with bans remaining in the other fourteen but all are under court challenge. Although the Court said explicitly that it was limiting review to the two basic issues, along the way the Justices may have to consider what constitutional tests they are going to apply to state bans, and what weight to give to policies that states will claim to justify one or the other of the bans....
    I hate trying to predict court rulings, but the political winds have changed dramatically the past few years, so if I had to bet, I'd bet that the ruling is 5-4 for gay marriage. [Warning - my bets tend to be counter-indicators.] Don't think for a second that politics and public opinion doesn't influence such historic cases. I also expect Elena Kagan to be one of the five, based on her comments during oral argument, via NY Times:

    Earlier this year, Alabama became a focal point in the ongoing resistance in some states to legalizing gay "marriage" (read about it here and here).  Watch a PBSNewshour clip that summarizes the issue (and the professor interviewed try to downplay the unpopularity of gay "marriage" in Alabama): Much of the debate centered on the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was and is adamantly opposed to federal government intervention in states' rights regarding gay "marriage," but Chief Justice Moore is not the only Alabamian who is taking actual steps to address their objections. The Alabama state legislature has drafted a bill that moves to replace marriage licenses with contracts. Hot Air reports:
    Assuming a pending bill in Alabama makes it all the way into law, we’re about to see an unusual test case in the marriage wars. Rather than arguing over the definition of marriage for the purposes of issuing licenses, the Heart of Dixie is moving to do away with marriage licenses entirely and replace them with contracts.

    No matter which way you come down on the issue of gay marriage, today was a big day at the Supreme Court. Those who wished to sit in the courtroom (and who weren't lucky enough to hold membership in the Supreme Court Bar, or the media) camped for several nights outside the courthouse, and today, protesters (both hopeful and defiant) gathered on the steps to make their voices heard. Obergefell v. Hodges is consolidated with three other cases, and the issues at hand are pretty simple compared to those contained in other cases we've covered:
    1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
    So, here we are. "Finally," some would say. Is gay marriage an idea whose time has come, or an idea that should be left untouched by the government? Both parties had their day in court today, and the ebb and flow of oral arguments revealed a divide in the Court that has left many SCOTUS watchers hesitant to make a prediction.

    After being bombarded with threats last week for their traditionally Christian stance on marriage, Memories Pizza was forced to close. Yesterday, they reopened their doors with over $800,000 dollars in the bank. FOX News reported:
    Northern Indiana pizzeria that backed religious law reopens A northern Indiana pizzeria that closed after its owner supported Indiana's religious objections law has reopened. Memories Pizza owner Kevin O'Connor says he reopened about 4 p.m. Thursday. He says that within an hour, all eight tables were filled and six people were waiting for carryout orders. There were no protests as of 7 p.m. O'Connor faced criticism after he and his daughter, Crystal, said they would never deny service to a gay customer but would decline to cater a same-sex wedding because it would conflict with their Christian beliefs. Protests led them to close the Walkerton pizzeria about 20 miles southwest of South Bend.

    Talk radio host Tammy Bruce has come to the defense of Memories Pizza, the Indiana restaurant which was forced to close due to threats. In a recent appearance on FOX and Friends with Tucker Carlson, Bruce said that although she is gay, she doesn't approve of the tactics being used by gay marriage activists. Bradford Thomas of Truth Revolt:
    Openly gay conservative radio host Tammy Bruce appeared on Fox & Friends Thursday to discuss the "frenzy" over the Indiana Pizzeria who said hypothetically that they would not cater a same-sex wedding due to religious convictions. Bruce defended the pizza shop, warning the LGBT community against becoming the very "bullies" and "fascists" they should be fighting against. Bruce called the attacks on the pizzeria another unfortunate instance of the LGBT "mob" taking over, when it is the LGBT community that should best understand the importance of defending those with differing opinions:
    BRUCE: For me, as a gay woman, it remains shocking. You sit back and watch this frenzy, like a wolf pack, going after survivors in a way with like a pizza shop. And if there’s anyone in the world who should understand the vulnerability of being a minority—of being somebody that maybe others don’t understand or relate to, the vulnerability about work and jobs, being able to live your life as you see fit—it’s the gay community. …
    Watch the exchange:

    A family owned pizza shop in Indiana closed its doors until further notice yesterday after death and firebombing threats, as well as hacking. The PJ Tatler provides a stunning account of how what happened:

    Story About First Business to ‘Publicly Vow to Reject Gay Weddings’ Was Fabricated Out of Nothing

    The Huffington Post headline screams: Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings Memories Pizza is a nine-year-old shop in downtown Walkerton, Indiana, just a few blocks from John Glenn High School. It’s owned by an openly-Christian couple, the O’Connors, who decorate their shop with mementos of their faith in Christ. So how does a small business in a small town wind up making headlines around the world as the new avatar of Christian bigotry?
    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode