GAY TRUTH

Pro and anti-Proposition 8 protesters rally in front of the San Francisco City Hall as the California Supreme Court holds a session in the to determine the definition of marriage (Strauss v. Horton cases). (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) There is a lot of good analysis on the Supreme Court’s decisions last Wednesday to throw out California’s Proposition 8 case ( Perry  v. Hollingsworth ) and to overthrow key parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ( United States  v.  Windsor ). Same-sex marriage supporters are elated at the incredible progress the gay rights movement has made in recent years. The more optimistic marriage defenders point out that the decisions don’t really change much: they simply refer the argument over marriage to the states, to let the democratic process, and civil society, do its work. And who could argue with this sort of federalism? But of course, both of these positions miss an important fact. In both Supreme Court decisions a law passed by a d

Kamala Harris may not yet be a household name across the nation, but she's the uber-liberal state Attorney General of California . She hails from San Francisco and she doesn't much care for people who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, as God created it. In fact, she pretty much disdains us . In a press conference called to celebrate the US Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal of Prop 8 on standing grounds, Harris said of those of us who support true marriage, " The United States Supreme Court in essence declared today: they are bystanders; they are sitting in [sic] the sidelines. " She also declared happily, " The United States Supreme Court today made clear that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. " Please help us stop manipulative politicians like Kamala Harris  who would silence our voice in the public square and treat us like pariahs simply for believing in the age-old, God-ordained conjugal view of marriage.

Analysis June 30, 2013 ( blog.heritage.org)  - On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry , finding that the official proponents of California’s Proposition 8 (which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman) lacked standing to defend the law in court. Throwing out the federal appellate court’s decision, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the appellate court with instructions to dismiss the case. So what happens next? The short answer is more litigation. Here are a few key points about the case: California state officials refused to defend the law in court. While one federal district court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, that ruling may not apply to the entire state of California . At a minimum, the original challengers of the law will now be able to marry. Whether this applies to more same-sex couples in California will be determined in the days to come. In 2009, two same-sex couples who wanted to ma

Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court , as expected, overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act , or DOMA. At the same time the Court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8 , citing what lawyers call a “lack of standing.” Here's the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court did not issue a Roe v. Wade type of decision for gay marriage. Yes, DOMA is gone. But same-sex marriage in California is still up in the air, and everywhere else the battle goes on. The DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor, involved the estate of a woman who left everything to her same-sex spouse, a marriage recognized by the state of New York. The surviving spouse was barred from claiming the federal estate tax exemption by Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Appeals Court’s rulings that DOMA was unconstitutional. Writing for the ma

June 27, 2013 ( blog.heritage.org )   -   The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s the lay of the land. The important takeaway: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning…and that means it’s time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America . Some key numbers following the decisions: 50  - The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions. 38  - The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California , where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation. 12 -  The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize

Today's  Supreme Court decisions  overturning part of the  federal Defense of Marriage Act  and failing to rule clearly on  California's Proposition 8  case are deeply troubling. They worsen the widespread confusion on the  definition of marriage . Ironically, the family and I have just landed in Washington D.C. for a tour of historic  Williamsburg . From the small television in the back of the seat on the airplane, I watched the proceedings from the steps of the Supreme Court as reporters analyzed the news coming from inside the historic building. Together, the Court neglected to uphold the will of the people through their elected representatives in  Congress  and the public votes of more than seven million  California  citizens. Yet, however disappointing the rulings may be to those of us who embrace natural marriage, the decisions should not elicit a spirit of despair. To be clear, the Court rulings responded to two complex cases asking narrow legal questions. Legal experts

Pro and anti-Proposition 8 protesters rally in front of the San Francisco City Hall as the California Supreme Court holds a session in the to determine the definition of marriage (Strauss v. Horton cases). (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The Supreme Court ’s ruling on Proposition 8 has me feeling like that about our legal system. the history of Proposition 8 . To summarize, Californians passed a law in 2000 saying that marriage was between a man and a woman, but authorizing same sex domestic partnerships with all the benefits of marriage except the word  marriage . Four years later an unelected county clerk in San Francisco started giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples, and this lasted for five months until the State Supreme Court stopped it. Then four years later (2008), the court reversed itself, saying the 2000 law was unconstitutional. Christians were essentially told if they wanted to define marriage, they needed a constitutional amendment to do that. Which is wha