GAY TRUTH

Bleijie has capitulated on marriage and is seen as a blow to a large part of his support base who are conservatives.  The capitulation of former Queensland Attorney General Jarrod Bleijie on the meaning of marriage will come as a big disappointment for people who voted for him, according to Australian Christian Lobby Queensland director Wendy Francis. “Throughout his career, Mr Bleijie has actively sought the votes of people who believe in the right of children to wherever possible be raised by their parents. “To now take a position on marriage that mandates a family structure denying this basic right to children is a blow to his social justice credentials and a breach of trust to voters.” Ms Francis said Mr Bleijie had played into the hands of those described by Paul Kelly in the Weekend Australian yesterday as seeking to “drive religion into the shadows”. “At a time when the public are very cynical about politicians, it is disappointing to see a politician jettisoning his

The campaign to redefine marriage has recently gained such momentum – with now three and soon four bills before the Commonwealth Parliament – that many think it is inevitable. This can leave those with misgivings feeling that they are already losers in a done deal. Some think it is the inexorable progress of liberty and equality – which leaves the doubters on “the wrong side of history.” In this context supporters of classical marriage are presumed to have no real arguments to offer. So here I want to offer some reasons – not decrees from on high or from the past, not expressions of hatred or prejudice – but reasons I hope anyone can understand. I also hope these reasons prove persuasive and helpful in proclaiming and witnessing to true marriage among families, friends and colleagues. Regardless, I hope this will help explain why Australian law has always held, and many people still hold, that marriage is for people of opposite sex. I will examine five common slogans in this debate –

After watching from a distance as the marriage debate ignited out west, Oklahomans were horrified yesterday to see the battle march directly into their backyards. From Tulsa to Tipton, the news dropped like a bombshell, stunning the million-plus voters who'd exercised what they thought was their constitutional right to define marriage. Under the 68-page opinion of a single judge, that right no longer exists for Sooners. Like New Jersey, New Mexico , and Utah before them, Oklahomans are feeling the deep betrayal of a judicial system overrun by political activists. In a country where lawlessness is more contagious than the common cold, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern smothered the votes of 76% of the state and substituted his judgment for that of 1,075,216 Oklahomans. Kern, a Clinton-appointee, even stuck it to the U.S. Supreme Court in his ruling, implying that the justices dodged the hard questions in their June marriage decision. In reality, the Court couldn't have been

English: Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The US Supreme Court has decided that, at least for now, marriage is the purview of the states, and they declined to "constitutionalize" gay 'marriage.' That's good news for us, because 38 states already define marriage as the union of one man and one woman - the vast majority of them in their state constitutions . It is imperative that we protect that turf, and go on to win more states. So as a matter of first importance, NOM will continue to work tirelessly with our national and state partners to defend natural marriage whenever and wherever it is under attack. That includes working legislatively in states like Illinois, New Jersey and Hawaii, and at the ballot box in states like Ohio and Oregon. And NOM will continue to press hard for the right of states to have their voters define marriage in state constitutions. We join with Governor Mike Pen

Ecuador’s socialist president Rafael Correa has announced his opposition to homosexual “ marriage ” and adoption of children in an interview with the Ecuadoran television channel RTS, saying that the latter is contrary to nature and to the welfare of children. “I’m not in agreement with the adoption of children on the part of couples of the same sex, because I think that nature has to be given its due, and children should be in a traditional family, constituted by a man and a woman,” Correa reportedly said. Calling the family “the foundation of the society,” Correa told RTS that “one can’t be carried along by fashions. One must be led by principles, values, beliefs,” and described himself as “very progressive in the economic and social sense, but rather conservative regarding moral issues.” Noting that the Ecuadoran constitution already has provisions for homosexual civil unions, and that he has never supported homosexual “marriage,” Correa added that such proposals are “foolishnes

Gay Couple with child (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Author: Dan McLaughlan At the core of the two same-sex marriage cases argued this week before the Supreme Court is the fundamental question of whether the Constitution   requires  the state and federal governments to treat same-sex marriage  exactly the same  as traditional, opposite-sex marriage  for all purposes for all time , or whether it is permissible to draw reasoned distinctions between the two, ranging from California’s simple reservation of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples to the federal government’s comprehensive reservation of all federal benefits of marriage (including joint tax filings, Social Security benefits and immigration status) to opposite-sex couples. I respectfully submit that this should not be a difficult question.  Common human experience, basic biology, and existing social science all confirm that there are significant differences between SSM and traditional marriage . Whether or not y