GAY TRUTH

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) To many people it will seem obvious that the US Constitution , which says nothing at all about homosexual marriage , cannot be claimed to support any “right” to homosexual marriage. The US Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue, but several state courts have issued rulings. Most notably the Massachusetts, Connecticut,45 and Iowa supreme courts have now “found” a right to same-sex marriage in state constitutions that contained absolutely no mention at all of homosexual marriage. The California Supreme Court also created a “right” to same-sex marriage, but that decision was overturned when the voters in November 2008 passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that restored marriage as the union between one man and one woman. How could various courts “discover” same-sex “marriage” in their state constitutions? Or how could it ever be decreed by any federal court or by the US Supreme Court? Only if it were invented by

Image via Wikipedia Even where legal recognition and marital rights and benefits are available to same-sex couples (whether through same-sex civil “marriages,” “ civil unions ,” or “ domestic partnerships ”), relatively few same-sex couples even bother to seek such recognition or claim such benefits. The most simple way to document this is by comparing the number of same-sex couples who have sought such legal recognition in a given state18 with the number of “same-sex unmarried-partner households” in the most recent U.S. Census.19 When a relatively small percentage of same-sex couples—even among those already living together as partners—even bother to seek legal recognition of their relationships, while an overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples who live together are legally married, it suggests that homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to reject the institution of marriage or its legal equivalent. In California , same-sex “marriage” was only legal for a few m

Image via Wikipedia Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a bill that will require all businesses that have contracts in excess of $100,000 with the state to provide benefits to the same-sex partners of homosexual employees. The new law comes at the same time as pro-family activists are defending Proposition 8 , the state’s voter-approved ballot measure defining marriage as a man and a woman, in court. “Claiming to be anti-discriminatory , this new law discriminates against all employers who limit their benefits to married couples , according to the State’s own definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman,” Ron Prentice, the Executive Director of  ProtectMarriage.com , the organization behind Proposition 8, told LifeSiteNews. The Equal Benefits law was authored by Democratic Senator Christine Kehoe , a lesbian, and received the enthusiastic support of the homosexual lobby. “The state’s tax dollars earned by hardworking Californians should no Image

Image via Wikipedia Judges have a duty not only to apply the law without bias, but also to do so in a way that avoids even the mere appearance of impropriety .  This idea is a cornerstone of the judiciary .   Thus, the Supreme Court has long been clear that “no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.”    Against the backdrop of these bedrock principles, it is clear that the ruling of Judge Walker must be vacated. Over eight months after declaring unconstitutional the democratic decision of over 7 million Californians to reaffirm traditional marriage, Judge Walker publicly revealed that he has been in a committed same-sex relationship for over 10 years.  Instead of revealing these facts to the parties and their counsel, Judge Walker kept them to himself, even though the subject matter of the case presented an issue in which Judge Walker and his partner had a direct interest.  Judge Walker’s course of condu

Image via Wikipedia A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court Wednesday ruled that, despite a lower court decision overturning California ’s true marriage amendment, Proposition 8, the amendment would stay in force while that decision is being appealed. Ninth Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins and N. Randy Smith have upheld an injunction against homosexual couples seeking marriage licenses while the law remains in dispute. The one-sentence order was greeted as a significant victory for Prop. 8 supporters, who have been abandoned by the California state government to defend the voter-approved amendment on their own. “It’s a victory for Proposition 8 supporters and the initiative process as a whole. People need to have confidence that their vote will count, at least until the courts make a final decision,” said ProtectMarriage.com general counsel Andy Pugno, who is defending Prop. 8 in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case, according to the  Los Angeles Times .