GAY TRUTH

The first profile in cowardice is in the state of Nevada , where this week the Attorney General and the Governor  withdrew their defense of that state's marriage laws against a legal challenge by gay activists. The Democratic Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto , filed a brief opining that Nevada's present law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — an amendment passed by the voters of the state in 2002 — is likely to fail before the bench of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . The Republican Governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval , then issued a written statement to the press saying that he agreed with Masto's analysis. But they are wrong. Masto cited as reasoning an earlier case decided by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit led by the notorious Judge Stephen Reinhardt . The previous case involved jury selection and the legality of peremptory strikes of homosexual jury candidates. First off, it isn't even clear that that case applies

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) E.J. Graff has been a leading voice in the charge for same-sex marriage for well over a decade. But now that same-sex marriage is on the doorstep of the Supreme Court, she's nervous. More than that: she's scared. As she wrote last week in The Advocate: If the court does take up Perry ( Proposition 8 ), be afraid, be very afraid. Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry's heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution ? Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court did take up the Perry case—as well as a case attempting to overturn the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. This is fantastic news for marriage! It is also a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings of far-left, activist courts that have been practically legislating from the bench to re-define marriage. NOM has been deeply

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) A  ruling  Tuesday by the  Ninth Circuit Court  of Appeals leaves backers of California's Proposition 8 only one more avenue for appeal—the U.S. Supreme Court . In February , a panel of three judges from the Ninth Circuit ruled that California's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Proponents of Proposition 8 then asked for a larger review by 11 of the 25 members of the circuit court; today's vote by a majority of the Ninth Circuit denies reconsideration of the decision. The Ninth Circuit said that California's ban on same-sex marriages would remain in place for now. The circuit court gave 90 days for an appeal to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. In response to the decision, Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum pointed to a  dissenting opinion  by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain , beginning with a quote from President Obama's recent announcement that he supported same-s

Image via Wikipedia Yesterday's ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was truly astonishing: Proposition 8—and by implication the marriage laws at the federal level and in 43 states—is unconstitutional. Even while pretending their ruling was a “narrow” decision, these judges effectively decreed themselves to be the supreme overlords of the people, invalidating the votes of over 7 million Californians and declaring that they, the vaunted elite in black robes and cloaked with lifetime tenure, will decide what marriage means in California and the nation. I don't know about you but my blood is boiling! Not only must our founding fathers be rolling over in their graves with the preposterous notion that marriage is unconstitutional, but the ruling is an affront to the millions of Americans—the vast majority of the nation—who recognize that man does not have the right to redefine marriage. After all, how can federal judges redefine something that man didn

Image via Wikipedia SAN FRANCISO , CA, February 7, 2012, ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – This morning, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled by a 2-1 vote that a California constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is  unconstitutional . In an 89-page ruling that cited William Shakespeare and Marilyn Monroe , Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote , “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” In 2008, California voters approved the state constitutional amendment defending marriage by a margin of  52.5 percent to 47.5 percent . U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker , who is in a long-term homosexual relationship,  ruled  in August 2010 that the measure “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an