Apr 24 2014

Invented rights…


Apr 23 2014

Judge rules SSM opponents have no rights

Angela McCaskill, former Gallaudet University diversity officer

Angela McCaskill, former Gallaudet University diversity officer

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Gallaudet University by the school’s diversity officer, who the college demoted after she signed an anti-gay marriage petition.

The dismissal effectively confirms the worries of gay marriage opponents, who say that releasing the names on ballot petitions leaves signatories vulnerable to retaliation.

Some states have provisions that prohibit discrimination against ballot signatories, but the District of Columbia — home to Gallaudet University — provides protection only for D.C. ballot measures.

The acclaimed school for the deaf suspended and then demoted Angela McCaskill after a lesbian professor discovered her name on the petition to put “Proposition 6” — which would have overturned Maryland’s legalization of gay marriage — on the November 2012 Maryland ballot.

Read the full article at The Daily Caller.

Apr 23 2014

Fed. Judge Rules Ohio Must Follow Other States’ Marriage Laws Instead of Its Own


So long, Ohio. According to a federal judge Monday in Henry v. Himes, the U.S. Constitution now requires that the laws of one state automatically supersede those of Ohio, whether or not Ohio approves.

The circumstances surround same-sex marriage, though the precise legal issue is one that has been flying below the radar for some time – the recognition by one state of another state’s same-sex marriage. In the case, several same-sex couples with marriage licenses from California, Massachusetts, and New York sought recognition of their relationships in their home state of Ohio, where marriage is defined as between only one man and one woman. According to Monday’s ruling, Ohio’s marriage laws are “facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances.” Thus, same-sex marriage licenses from any jurisdiction are valid in Ohio.

While the court said that Ohio is not required to issue its own marriage licenses to same-sex couples, this reservation amounts to a distinction without a difference. If same-sex couples can cross the state line, get a same-sex marriage, and then demand full recognition of their relationship upon returning home, it makes little difference whether Ohio issues licenses itself.

But is this result really required by the U.S. Constitution?

When the Supreme Court struck down DOMA last summer in the Windsor case, it struck down only the federal definition of marriage, leaving in place the sovereignty of the several states. Federal law still affirms that “[n]o State… shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State… respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex.” In other words, if your state doesn’t have same-sex marriage, your state doesn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Yet, in this ruling that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages from other states, the court determined that this directly-applicable provision of federal law is somehow “not specifically before the Court.”

Read the full article at Breitbart.com.

Mar 12 2014



Feb 26 2014

To Protest “Discrimination” Gay Bar Adds Politicians Who Oppose Special Rights for Homosexuals to Its List of People It Already Discriminates Against.

David Cooley 500

David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”

“I want to send a message to all those people out there who conflate Christian values with discrimination: we don’t want your kind here,” Cooley said. “I’ve learned that I can’t stop crazy, ignorant or stupid, but I can stop it from coming through my doors.”

Read the full article at CBS Los Angeles.

Cooley seems completely oblivious that even having a “Deny Entry List” itself shows that he wants the right to refuse service to people based on his own values and convictions, something the laws he calls “anti-gay” are in essence trying to provide others.


Feb 13 2014

Phase 2: Liberal judge rules Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages, in spite of it being illegal in Kentucky

court generic-500A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, striking down part of the state ban.

In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that Kentucky’s laws treat gay and lesbians differently in a “way that demeans them.” The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004. The out-of-state clause was part of it.

The decision came in lawsuits brought by four gay and lesbian couples seeking to force the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages.

Read the full article at FoxNews.com.

I must note that it is almost impossible to find an unbiased article about this story. Such gimmicks as only quoting one side, or quoting individuals for and organizations against (making it seem that it’s “big scary organization” v ordinary guy) or quoting the judges decision at length without one mention of obvious flaws in his reasoning are common.

I can actually remember when we actually had a press that actually did their jobs?

Feb 11 2014

Nevada governor and AG drop trou, bend over and tell homosexual activists they’ve won

drop trou 500Nevada’s attorney general and governor said Monday that they won’t defend the state’s gay marriage ban when it goes before a federal appeals court, saying that a recent court decision makes the state’s arguments supporting its constitutional amendment “no longer defensible.”

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, in a motion filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Nevada’s legal arguments defending the voter-approved prohibition aren’t viable after the court’s recent ruling that potential jurors cannot be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.

“After thoughtful review and analysis, the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable,” Masto said in a statement.

The state’s move was an about-face from January, when the attorney general’s office filed a lengthy brief supporting the gay marriage ban that voters approved in 2002.

Read the full story at FoxNews.com.

Feb 11 2014

Statists and their Useful Idiots…


Feb 10 2014

Marriage and Hypocrisy…


Feb 4 2014

Defining Marriage…


Feb 3 2014

POLL: The best way to solve the problem of same-sex marriage is for…

same sex marriage 500

The best way to solve the problem of same-sex marriage is for...

  • ...government to obey the Constitution and respect the traditional, religious based definition of marriage. (82%, 423 Votes)
  • ...government to stay out of marriage so men can exploit any woman they want and never be responsible for the kids they father. (Sorry, but you cannot separate one from the other) (9%, 48 Votes)
  • ...government to do as it's doing now in Liberal states and enforce the Liberal definition of marriage. (4%, 23 Votes)
  • ...government to punish anyone who disagrees with whatever definition of marriage it wants to pretend is real that day. (5%, 23 Votes)

Total Voters: 517

Loading ... Loading ...

Feb 3 2014

Bill Protecting Pastors from Being Forced to Perform Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Fails in Committee

same-sex-marriage 500

Lawmakers in South Dakota have defeated a bill that sought to protect pastors from performing same-sex “weddings,” as the bill failed approval by a Senate committee by a single vote.

Senate Bill 66 was deemed to be unnecessary by opponents of the legislation, as they asserted that the state constitution already protects residents from being forced to violate their conscience.

“No member of the clergy nor lay official of any church or religion may be required to solemnize any marriage, provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat any marriage as valid for any purpose if such action would cause any such entity or individual to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs,” it read.

The legislation also protected pastors from lawsuits or any other type of retribution for refusing to officiate homosexual ceremonies against their conscience.

Read the full story at ChristianNews.net.

The assumption that the law already protects the clergy is horribly naïve given the number of liberal judges placed into the court system throughout the years, who see their job as ignoring those very laws and imposing Liberal policies from the bench.

Jan 28 2014



Dec 2 2013

Further down the slippery slope: ABC champions polyamorous marriage

Polyamory_image-500On Monday, ABC News decided to publicize a movement known as polyamory, meaning people bedding down with multiple romantic and sexual partners as a legitimate relationship. Co-anchor Dan Harris said, “Just for a minute, let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point.”

Later, he added, “More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live-in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children.”

Nick Watt, reporting for ABC, interviewed Michael, Kamela and Rachel, a threesome that sleeps with others and still finds the time to raise a child. Watt breathlessly gasped, “They’re spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up.”

ABC has tried pushing the polyamory meme before; on January 4, 2012, Good Morning America triumphantly reported the sex games of a “modern” family who sleep with others within their “species.”

Read the full article at Breitbart.com.

Nov 8 2013

Dad ‘unfit parent for refusing son McDonald’s’

“You’d think it was sexual molestation,” Attorney David Schorr, 43, exclaimed. “I am just floored by it.”

Schorr says in his Manhattan Supreme Court suit that E. 97th Street psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller filed a report saying he was “wholly incapable of taking care of his son” and should be denied his weekend visitation over the greasy burger ban.

Schorr, a corporate attorney turned consultant with degrees from NYU and Oxford University, had planned to take his 4-year-old son to their usual restaurant, the Corner Café on Third Avenue, for his weekly Tuesday night visitation last week.

But the boy threw a temper tantrum and demanded McDonald’s. So he gave his son an ultimatum: dinner anywhere other than McDonald’s — or no dinner.

“The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the ‘no dinner’ option,” the disgruntled dad says in the suit.

Read the full article at the New York Post.