GAY TRUTH

United State Supreme Court Building (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) A county clerk and chief deputy clerk in New Mexico resigned from their positions after the state's Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last week. Roosevelt County Clerk Donna Carpenter and Deputy Clerk Janet Collins resigned from their posts early Friday morning, one day after the state's Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the state's constitutional right to equal protection. Although an official reason for the clerks' resignation has not been provided, county commissioners have told the Associated Press and other media outlets that both Collins and Carpenter made their intention of quitting clear, should same-sex marriage be legalized in the state. Roosevelt County Commissioner Bill Cathey told AP that the two had made it apparent that they would quit "rather than be associated with that … she told us in the past that's what she would do,"

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

Many people simply don’t grasp the lies behind the challenge to Proposition 8 . The first lie: the challenge was about gay marriage. The truth is that it is about a Christian’s right to vote. The second lie: Proposition 8 took away a right to gay marriage. The truth is, that right never (legally) existed in California. In 2000, California voters approved a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, while granting the state the ability to give all the benefits of marriage to couples in a same-sex domestic partnership. This was the everything but the word “marriage” approach to same-sex unions. When those partnerships were being debated in the legislature, even homosexual activists claimed that they did not want the word marriage. It was a religious term, they said, and one with which they wanted nothing to do. But in 2004, the mayor San Francisco directed his county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. This office is non-elected, and the clerk

Today the Supreme Court issued rulings on two historic and controversial cases which challenged the legal validity, at both the state and federal level, of the the traditional definition of marriage. Here are nine things you should know about the cases: 1. The two cases,  United States v. Windsor   and  Hollingsworth v. Perry , are each based on differing -- and perhaps mutually exclusive -- theories of which level of government has the right to define marriage. The challenge to DOMA ( Windsor ) was based on the claim that marriage is a matter for state rather than federal regulation while the challenge to Proposition 8 ( Hollingsworth ) was a challenge to to the claim that an individual state can define marriage as between one woman and one man. 2.  United States v. Windsor  was a direct challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This  case was not about  whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but rather whether Congress can treat married same

Image via Wikipedia Harshly criticizing Gov.  Andrew M. Cuomo  for the tactics he used to win approval of same-sex  marriage , a state judge has ruled that a  lawsuit  challenging the enactment of  New York ’s Marriage Equality Act can proceed. Acting  Justice  Robert B. Wiggins of  State Supreme Court  in Livingston County, in the  Finger Lakes region , wrote that it was possible that the  Republican  majority in the State Senate had violated the state’s open meetings law as it discussed whether to bring the marriage bill to a vote. His ruling offered a flash of hope for the conservative group that filed the lawsuit, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, which is asking the court to overturn the marriage law  and nullify the weddings that have been performed under it. ... Justice Wiggins was particularly critical of the governor’s use of a procedural maneuver that allowed legislators to vote on the Marriage Equality Act immediately after the bill was drafted, rather than waiting