Is Same-Sex Marriage Destined to Fail Before SCOTUS?

By now you have probably heard that there is a murmur of possibly bringing a case before the United States Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage. The idea is that we can end all the grassroots campaigns and ballot measures with one final, grand case that will be the final decision for everyone. Despite what you may think about this possibility, some people are under the impression that it would be the best thing for traditional marriage proponents.

 Writing for the Culture of Life Foundation, Helen Alvare has some interesting points to make on this topic that should be considered by all; especially those that believe same-sex marriage has been embraced by the majority of this country.

 To save space here I will summarize her main points, but also encourage you to read the full article here.

 Her first point for why it would be damaging for same-sex marriage advocates going to the Supreme Court at this time, and why it would be positive for traditional marriage supporters, is that if such a case is lost for homosexuals it would set back same-sex marriage on every level from federal to state, to local. This supposed civil right for homosexuals to marry would be demoted in value and urgency from its current place in the minds of many lawmakers and even more citizens.

 Point number two is that in its current state the arguments prepared for the Supremes are nothing new and nothing revelational that we have not heard a million times before. In other words, they are not going to shock and awe the Supreme Court into taking a step back and reconsidering anything. Of course this is good news for traditional marriage supporters as we see the same-sex crowd running out of answers and reasons for their position. Conversely, traditional marriage supporters have several thousands of years of evidence for their position. Maybe most troubling about the current arguments is the tone they take. While traditional marriage supporters speak often of family and values, these arguments center on individuals and wants. Not to mention that in traditional marriage family is a natural product, whereas in same-sex unions biological offspring is a biological impossibility. This, for many people, diminishes this so-called right to a wanton desire.

 A third reason that a case before the Supreme Court could be doomed to failure is based upon the current method of legislating. Lately we have seen many courts and judges ignore the clear wording of the Constitution and simply legislate their own ideal and opinions from the bench; the Supreme Court has been known to use this method on occasion. Their renderings have been, at times, seemingly based upon the current leaning of the country, which, same-sex advocates believe and hope is in their favor. But hesitation could reveal that this is not the case.

 The last reason this is an interesting case to watch comes straight from the ACLU: “History says the odds at the Supreme Court now are not so good  because the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states.”  Don’t rush over that statement. What we have is an admission from a high profile same-sex supporter that currently, in America, the majority of the country is opposed to same-sex marriage. This despite what the liberal media would have us all believe; which just proves even more that most people don’t trust their local news.

 To sum up this article let me just reiterate what many of us have been saying all along: support for same-sex marriage is not near as high as the minority would have us believe. Traditional marriage is strong in America, and the greatest proof of that is the outcome at the ballot box every time the citizens are given the chance to vote. This is also why some states refuse to give their citizens that opportunity, and for that they should be ashamed.

 Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Have Motherless and Fatherless Homes Become a Good Idea?

An article by Oran P. Smith of the Palmetto Family Council came to my attention yesterday and I want to pass along some of his sentiments and echo some of his thoughts. Read a portion of Mr. Smith’s article below, or you can click here for the full article.

       “South Carolinians know that marriage is an institution that predates the law and the Constitution. Nothing else besides male-female marriage makes any sense and never has. Marriage without a male and a female cannot be called marriage any more than lemonade can be called lemonade without lemons. It is just common sense that marriage is a union of two different genders, not just a union of two different people.
     South Carolinians know that just like with money, a counterfeit version of marriage devalues the genuine article. Yes, same-sex marriage does harm real marriage. Same-sex marriage is a strike at the very idea of the importance of gender in our society. What could be more socially revolutionary?”

 Mr. Smith is writing for a South Carolina based family group, but, I would gladly exchange “South Carolina” for “West Virginia,” or just about any state for that matter. I believe it would be easily verifiable that the majority of citizens in this country support the traditional definition of marriage. Consider some facts brought out by Mr. Smith earlier in his article:

-To date, 29 states have passed a marriage amendment, and 42 states have passed defense of marriage laws.
-A May 2008 survey showed that African-American people oppose same-sex marriage by a margin of 46 percent to 26 percent (Pew Research Center).
-A May 2009 Gallup poll showed Americans oppose legalizing same-sex marriage by a margin of 57 to 40 percent.

And of course most notably was the decision by residents of California, generally considered to be a more liberal state, to enact an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as a union between one man and woman.

But the fight for traditional marriage goes much deeper than a simple definition. It is a fight to preserve the traditional family that has been the foundation for our society for generations. It is the fight to give every child the opportunity to be raised in a home with a mom and dad, learning the invaluable life lessons that come from each. And if you think this is just about the right to marry, consider this quote from lesbian scholar Paula Ettelbrick, writing in “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”

“Being [homosexual] is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being [homosexual] means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.”

There is the true motive behind the homosexual agenda, the real intention that few are willing to admit. This is not just about the right to marry, this is about an effort to undermine all that America has stood for, and all that we hold sacred and dear. This is a battle for the mind of your kids. This is a battle to stop indoctrination in public schools. This is a battle to stop the revolutionary alteration of society.

Same-sex marriage will successfully create the largest generation of motherless and fatherless homes in the history of America, and society in general. And never before have motherless and fatherless homes been encouraged, so why start now? The negative effects of motherless and fatherless homes have not changed, the benefits of intact traditional families has not changed. Essentially I agree with Mr. Smith that it doesn’t make sense to “create motherless or fatherless homes on purpose? It comes down to putting the needs of children before the desires of adults.”

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

The Homosexual Truth No One Wants to Hear

I am all for equality. But not if another person’s equality costs me my God-given freedoms. Freedoms like the ability to hold to differing views and opinions on social and cultural issues. Or the freedom to hire the people I choose without the fear of a lawsuit. Or the freedom to decline service to a person because it is my business and I have that right.

 

But the ugly truth is that the homosexual agenda is much more than marriage equality. If it was that simple I believe they would have their wish. But the truth is that the homosexual community wants immunity. They want the ability to say and do what they want without anyone telling them otherwise. And that is where their equality costs me my freedom; and I have a big problem with that.

 

Recently, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Ph. D., wrote an excellent article detailing the implications of the homosexual agenda for the “average Joe” American. (Click here to read the article in its entirety). I won’t duplicate the major content of the article here, I hope you will take a few moments and read it for yourself. The all-inclusive implications are astounding to think about and amount to a total brainwashing of independent moral thought.

 

I have listed, in short form some of the results that we would see should sexual orientation become a specially protected civil right.

 

1. Go to jail for “hate speech” Speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle could be punishable with jail time for everyone, including ministers.

2. Loss of job for non-support of “coming out” celebrations or even for any remarks that are deemed discriminatory outside of the workplace.

3. Pay fines and legal fees by your company for criticizing or otherwise not supporting homosexual behavior.

4. The removal of your children for teaching them any ideas deemed “homophobic.”

5. Endure, without recourse, the systematic indoctrination of homosexual appreciation of your children in the public school system.

 

And these are just a few of the catastrophic consequences of protecting sexual orientation as a civil right. More are mentioned in the article. But, quite frankly, these are disturbing enough.

 

Perhaps the thing that I wish more homosexuals would realize is that most anyone can overlook their sexual orientation decision. Few, if any will be quick to hate or judge because of that. But the reason many are so staunchly opposed to the homosexual agenda is that they want everyone around them to cheerfully accept their choice and affirm it. But that is not what tolerance and free speech are all about.

 

If we want to truly call ourselves a nation based on free speech and tolerance then everyone must understand that none of us has the right to demand that others agree with our ideals and views; to do so amounts to communism. It removes the free exchange of ideals, open communication, and instills fear into the hearts of people. When did those things become good ideas?

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Free Speech is Going to Cost You

The intended understanding of “free speech” is nearly non-existent in America today.

 

Is free speech, as intended in the First Amendment a reality in America today? In my opinion it is perhaps the most misused, misunderstood freedom we have. And, incidentally, if we are not careful, it could very well disappear altogether.

 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that we do indeed have the “freedom of speech.” (Click here to view the Amendments to the Constitution.) Now, I am certainly no English scholar but, in my understanding that means I am allowed to say what I want to say without fear of retribution. That does not means that people have to like what I say, nor do they have to agree with what I say, but I am nonetheless free to say what I want to say.

 

So, for example, if I am preparing to graduate from school, whether high-school or college, and I want to thank Jesus for helping me to get through my studies and helping me to achieve academic success I am free to do so. Or, if I am at work and I share my opinion that homosexuality and the civil rights struggles of African Americans are in no way similar, I should once again be free to do so.

 

And if I were to share my beliefs or my opinions on these or any number of other topics and someone were to threaten me, intimidate me, or in any way try to coerce me to change my view or recant what I said, I should reasonably expect to be outraged and be promptly defended by some great champion of civil rights like the ACLU…right?

 

Try telling that to Erica Corder, Ryan Dozier, or Crystal Dixon.

 

Erica Corder is the Colorado Springs Valedictorian who was told to issue a letter of apology for mentioning Jesus Christ in her graduation speech before she would receive her diploma. After being intimidated by school administrators to write the letter of apology, which included the words “I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did…” Corder was “allowed” to graduate. The case has been taken up by the Liberty Counsel and is headed for appeals court.

 

Ryan Dozier is the Yuba College student who was disciplined for speaking to fellow students on campus about his faith in Jesus Christ. He was told that “free speech” was allowed only on Tuesday and Thursday between the hours of 12 and 1PM, and that if another incident occurred he could be expelled. The Alliance Defense Fund has taken up the case and a state court has ordered the college to suspend enforcement of the restrictions that are currently under challenge.

 

Crystal Dixon was an administrator at the University of Toledo before being fired for submitting an editorial to the local newspaper as a private citizen. Her article disagreed with a previous article that the struggles of homosexuals and the civil rights struggles faced by African Americans are at all similar. The university first suspended her, and then fired her for her article. Her case has been picked up by the Thomas More Law Center.

 

In each of these cases Christians are being harassed and persecuted for their personal beliefs. If you don’t think so then consider the following. Would Erica Corder have been forced to write a letter of apology if she would have mentioned Allah in her graduation speech? Would Ryan Dozier have been punished and threatened with expulsion for telling his fellow students about his faith in Islam? Would Crystal Dixon have been fired for writing an article sharing her support for the gay community? The answer is an obvious and deafening no!

 

So, essentially, what has happened is that each of these people have been punished for their own personal beliefs, which, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, are shared by a majority of Americans. And the message that has gone out with each of these cases is that we are certainly free to speak our minds…as long as what we say is “politically correct” and agrees with the mainstream thought on each topic. Forget personal opinion and diversity of thought, let’s just all say the same thing whether we agree or not.

 

But the ACLU did come to the rescue of one person whose first amendment rights were violated. Big Bear High School student Mariah Jimenez was ordered to change her t-shirt by her teacher and then her principle, or be forced to stay in the office all day. What did her shirt say that prompted the action? Her shirt read “Prop. 8 Equals Hate.” Mariah was expressing her opinions on a subject and was told she could not.

 

Now, for the record, I do not agree with Ms. Jimenez. But I will stand firmly by her side and defend her right to express herself. I will stand with the ACLU on the issue, though I disagree with much of what they do and what they stand for. Because, in the end, the fact is that Ms. Jimenez’s right of free speech was indeed infringed upon.

 

You see the idea behind free speech is that we are free to disagree. Why did the framers of our Constitution put that Amendment in there? Simply because they were tired of being told by the King of England what they had to believe and what they could and could not say. They knew that in order for a society to really thrive it must have a diversity of ideals. There must be the free exchange of ideas and conversation. Without this element all that exists is a society of robots who repeat everything they are told. What’s so great about that?

 

Why is it that the right to truly free speech seems available only to the rich and powerful? Anyone in Hollywood, in professional sports, or in a position of fame seems allowed to say anything they want with zero risk. And on top of that we are expected to fawn and slobber over every word simply because this person can act, or can dunk a basketball. Well whoop-de-do. Just because a guy can strap on a helmet and catch a football does not qualify him as an authority on social issues. And just because a woman can bare her soul and perhaps other parts of herself in front of a camera does not mean she is an expert at public policy.

 

But, if it is ok for these people to speak out and share their views then it should be ok for everyone. And the grand thing about free speech and democracy is that we do not have to agree. We simply have to respect the ideas and views of others in a civil way. I detest threatening and vandalizing churches for supporting Proposition 8 just as much as I detest “gay bashers.” I will stand and denounce the idea of murdering unborn children just as loudly as I will denounce murdering doctors for performing such procedures. Two wrongs never make a right, as my parents use to tell me.

 

I am disappointed that the ACLU would pick up the Jimenez case for being an egregious violation of free speech and choose to overlook the Corder, Dozier, and Dixon cases simply because they are religious in nature. Religious speech, much to the dismay of the politically correct crowd, is just as protected as any other speech in this country.

 

If you cherish the right to speak your mind every story in this article should outrage you.

 

Further Food for Thought:

Could Democracy Be Getting a Black Eye?

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

 

Consider Sharing This Post:     :   :   :   :    :    :    :   :   :   :   :  

 

 

New Jersey Could Make Three of a Kind

A state commission urges swift action.

 

 

Could New Jersey be the next state to make the leap from tradition to social activism? If a commission started two years ago to evaluate the states civil-union law has anything to do with it, the answer will be a resounding Yes!

 

A story in the Christianity Today Blog reports that the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission has finished its two year, 79 page review of the Garden States civil-union law, passed in 2006. And the conclusion?          

 

“The final report…says it gathered ‘overwhelming evidence’ that the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.”

 

The commission is seeking to push New Jersey lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage as quickly as possible. If such an effort is successful New Jersey would be the first state to legislate gay “marriage.” States such as Connecticut and Massachusetts have legalized same-sex marriage by virtue of state Supreme Court orders. In each case the people of the state were left completely out of the process that changed the laws in their states.

 

But several comments from articles on this story have stuck with me and deserve brief comment as we continue to bring news of the fight to retain the traditional definition of marriage in America.

 

1. “The state panel concluded that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is as unjust as government imposing racial segregation laws against African-Americans.”

 

I just cannot believe that same-sex marriage advocates are still using this completely absurd analogy to try and stir the passions of the American people into supporting their cause. I venture to say that only a minority of people would be so blatantly arrogant as to equate the struggles of a people group to that of a group of people. There is considerable difference between skin color and choice of sexual orientation. And as I have mentioned before, we all know of ex-homosexuals, but I have never heard of an ex-African American.

 

2. “Full equality for all residents.”

 

I wonder if New Jersey is as equally passionate about securing the rights of the unborn residents within its borders. Lawmakers seem very gung-ho about tirelessly pursuing what they believe to be civil rights for the gay and lesbian community around them. But what about the unborn residents of New Jersey that are murdered each day through abortion, are these residents second-class citizens undeserving of rights?

 

3. “The commission’s interim report in February found civil unions are ‘not clear to the general public’ and confer ‘second-class status’ on the couples who form them.”

 

Could it be that the status given to same-sex couples by the general public has nothing to do with the term designated to them but simply the fact that the general public does not believe that the relationships of same-sex couples truly is equal to that of a heterosexual couple? Perhaps they are given a “second-class status” because that is how the public feels about their “unions.” And even if same-sex “marriage” is granted in New Jersey that will do little to change the minds of the general public; and could in fact cause greater rifts between them because of the actions of lawmakers.

 

 

It does not take a great leap of faith to see how people could conclude that same sex “unions” or “marriages” are not equal to those of heterosexual couples. The most obvious point here is the fact that no same-sex couple can produce children in and of themselves, no matter how hard they try. And since one of the main purposes for marriage is to propagate, the fact that same-sex couples cannot do this speaks to the legitimacy of their relationship in the eyes of much of society.

 

In an article for Citizenlink, Pat Brannigan, executive director of New Jersey Catholic Conference, spoke about the personnel of the committee and the opinion of the general public,

 

“If you look at the membership of that committee, they’re all advocates. It’s an advocacy group. It doesn’t mean that that is the conclusion that society and people in general will come to.”

 

Quite honestly, it’s really just troubling to see a few lawmakers take the law into their own hands and decide to push laws through without the knowledge or consent of the people. When did they acquire the right to do that?

 

People in New Jersey ought to be furious with their elected officials that have decided to ignore them and simply do what they want, regardless of who likes it or not. Residents should be calling, writing, or e-mailing their lawmakers constantly, demanding that such an issue be put before the people.

 

It should be obvious by now that much of America does not believe in same-sex “marriage” and does not want it legalized. The most supporting fact for such a conclusion is that to date 30 states have amended their state constitution to define marriage as between on man and one woman. This has been done not just because that is the heartfelt conviction of the people, but also so that courts and lawmakers cannot come along and legislate for them, without their consent.

 

 

 

Further Food for Thought: Traditional Marriage Transcends Lines « Family Voice

 

Could Democracy Be Getting a Black Eye? « Family Voice

 

Click Here for a Reuters article on the issue of same-sex marriage in New Jersey.

 

 

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

Could Democracy Be Getting a Black Eye?

Could Democracy Be Getting a Black Eye?: It would if the courts decide to overturn Proposition 8.

By Nathan A. Cherry

 

            I am not a lawyer, and I won’t even pretend to know all there is to know about the law. But, I thought for sure I had some of the basics down. For example, if something is brought to the people for a vote, the outcome of that vote is to be the law regarding that particular issue. Am I wrong?

                Apparently there are some who are not fond of the democratic process here in America and would like to ditch it altogether in favor of letting judges decide what is and is not legal. This seems to be the case out in California where the state Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments over whether or not Proposition 8, the ballot measure passed by majority vote to ban same-sex marriage, is legal or a constitutional violation of civil rights.

 

“The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court’s decision in May that legalized gay marriage. All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.” (Click here for the full story).

 

                Wait just a minute. Did I read that correctly? “Voters alone [do] not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.” Well then who does? If I am correct, according to the very essence of democracy it is precisely the people who have the authority to enact such a change. In fact, the whole purpose for democracy is to allow the people to rule and govern themselves so that activists judges and lawmakers are kept in check and accountable.

                Are you telling me that the California Supreme Court had the right and authority to overturn the previously stated and voted upon will of the people in May when they overturned a previous ban on same-sex marriage? If that is true then what is the point of the people? Why do we even vote? If everything we vote on can be overturned by any group of judges who decides they don’t’ like how we voted, what is the point?

                I believe the Wall Street Journal was correct when it said:

 

“The great achievement of our system was to create a political order where these great moral disputes, as a matter of policy, are left to the people – with allowance for differences according to region and locale. Moral agents have a role to play, generally by shaping the larger culture in which these decisions are framed and debated. But the outcome is left to the people…” (Click here for the full story in the Wall Street Journal).

 

                And what of other states where same-sex marriage has been legalized? What if opponents of same-sex marriage charged in with bullhorns blazing, signs waiving, and vandalism run amok demanding that the laws be overturned? Does anyone think that there would be as much public interest? Not a chance. Those people would be called every name in the book, told they were out of line and to disperse, cease and desist, or be arrested. And yet we are expected to tolerate the illegal and reprehensive behavior of those in California who are mad that they didn’t get their way.

                Every one of us is entitled to our opinion, and the beautiful thing about freedom is that our opinions do not have to be the same. But if freedom and democracy are to survive then they must be respected by all parties, regardless of whether or not we agree.

                It is neither free, nor democratic to demand that all people adhere to the same view regardless of how the individual views the issue. That, plain and simple, is communism. If you want a monarchy, move to a European country. If you want communism, move to other European countries or certain Asian countries. But do not demand that democracy and the freedom to vote and have that vote matter be usurped just because you don’t like the outcome of that vote.

                Even one of the most supportive backers of same-sex marriage in California, Justice Joyce L. Kennard, voted not to hear the appeals and arguments for overturning Proposition 8. And while her motives and mind-set behind her decision to vote against hearing the cases is unclear at this time, according to an article in the L.A. Times (Click here for the full story), it should be a wake up call to others.

                In the same story, UCLA Law Professor Brad Sears says, “It definitely isn’t a good sign,” speaking of Justice Kennard’s decision. He seems to be worried that Justice Kennard, like many others in California, is not falling in line with others by believing that proposition 8 was an “improper revision of the state constitution.”

                UC Berkeley Law Professor Jesse H. Choper, guessing at what Kennard might be thinking, said, “What she seems to be saying is that she doesn’t think it is worth reviewing.”

                And why would it not be worth reviewing? Could it be due to the fact that something followed every legal guideline and was determined by the people and it should be left alone now for that very reason? That would make perfect sense.

                I agree whole-heartedly with three points stated in the previously referenced article in the Wall Street Journal of how usurping the will of the people is corrosive to our political system:

 

Ø       By allowing judges to usurp the will of the people they “act as dishonest referees, imposing one set of preferences over another.”

Ø       “They cheat the American people of an honest political contest.”

Ø       “They inject cynicism and bitterness into America’s body politic.”

 

And I know what many are saying. They want to equate the issue of same-sex marriage with the civil rights movement of African Americans. And they say that if America would have been allowed to vote the blacks would still be slaves. It sounds good at first glance, but there is a fundamental difference that distances these two issues by light years in my mind.

                There has never been a case of a black person changing skin color and deciding to no longer be black. Skin color does not in any way determine what is or is not a right. Therefore people of all skin colors are inherently equal simply because they are humans.

                But, and I know that many do not like to hear this; there are hundreds of accounts of ex-homosexuals. I have personally heard testimony of at least one. That fact alone means that the two issues are completely non-related and cannot be compared.

                Regardless of where you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, it should be easy for us all to agree on one thing. Democracy MUST be allowed to run its course. If we, as American citizens, allow judges to make decisions for us now, it will only get worse. And a monster will be born that grows too big for any of us to do anything about. And tomorrow we will all wake up in a sterile, controlled environment where judges and politicians decide everything for us. Where is the freedom in that?

                I have not always agreed on the decisions of the American people in voting. But one thing is for sure, and by the grace of God will continue, I will respect the process. It is not perfect, but it is without a doubt the best we have at this time.

                When we decide that people are no longer allowed to decide for themselves what laws will and will not be passed we move down a slippery slope toward a monarchy, communism, or even anarchy. And quite frankly no one wins in those systems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the      Family Policy Council of West Virginia. 

 

For E-Mail updates click here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FamilyVoice