GAY TRUTH

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

LAS VEGAS , December 3, 2012, ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – A Nevada judge has ruled that “no fundamental rights are burdened” by Nevada’s constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman – a ruling that has led liberals and homosexual activists to ridicule his Mormon faith. Eight homosexual couples sought to overturn the marriage protection measure, which was passed by two-thirds of Nevada voters just 10 years ago. The plaintiffs, who could not marry in the state or have their “marriages” recognize by the state, claimed they bore “the stigma of exclusion and of being branded by the government as inferior.” Judge Robert Jones. District Judge Robert C. Jones responded with  a ruling  the Family Research Council has called “a 41-page masterpiece.” Maintaining marriage “a legitimate state interest, he ruled, and “the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage is rationally related to furthering that interest.” Marriage, with its imm

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, June 6, 2012, ( LifeSiteNews.com ) –  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to review a three-judge panel’s decision that California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman violates the U.S. Constitution . Tuesday’s ruling means the case will land before the U.S. Supreme Court . The Ninth Circuit panel came to  the decision  by a split, 2-1 vote.  The  dissenting opinion  called the other two judges’ decree a “gross misapplication” of Supreme Court precedent “that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it.”  A gay activist waves a rainbow flag in front of the 9th Circuit Court. Those Supreme Court justices are all but certain to place this case on their docket, perhaps alongside a case on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “We’re pleased to petition the [Supreme] Court to hear

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

James Ware, District Judge (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) SAN FRANCISCO, April 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal judge in San Francisco has called federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman discriminatory for preventing partner benefits from going to a federal employee’s homosexual partner. On Tuesday, Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said that the government’s guarantee of a “discrimination-free workplace” was violated when Christopher Nathan, a law clerk for U.S. Magistrate Maria Elena James, attempted but failed to obtain insurance benefits for the male lover once recognized by the state of California as his “spouse,”  reports  the San Francisco Gate .  Although same-sex “marriage” is not legally recognized in California, the state has continued to treat as valid marriage licenses issued to homosexual couples during the 5-month window that the practice was legal in 2008. Because the ruling was part of the court’s employee dispute-resolution program, Ware

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

Gay money, immoral republicans, bribes and  manipulation pushed the NY Gay Vote through: here The Log Cabin Republicans , a pro- gay rights conservative group, immediately launched a fundraising drive to protect those four members who backed its cause. Clarke Cooper, the group's executive director , said it wasn't meant to be a " quid pro quo ."  The organization's state officials were a bit blunter. "Right now, agenda item number one is making sure that those four courageous Republicans who voted yes are protected" GOOD LUCK! IMMORALITY BOUGHT FOR 30 PIECES OF SILVER Related articles Log Cabin Republicans claim DADT victory at 9th Circuit Court; 'We are delighted,' attorney says (miamiherald.typepad.com) Govt Asks 9th Circuit to Reverse Order Which Halted 'DADT' Discharges (towleroad.com) Administration asks court to reconsider DADT order (cnn.com) Administration asks court to reconsider 'don't ask, don't te

Image via Wikipedia A federal appeals court in San Francisco has agreed to the U.S. Justice Department ’s request to allow the federal government to resume enforcement of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ( DADT ) policy temporarily.  The move allows the Pentagon to continue its job of certifying the military’s readiness to accept homosexual troops into the ranks. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals had lifted a stay on a lower court’s order that requires the U.S. military to end enforcement immediately of the ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces. District Judge Virginia Phillips ’ ruling, issued in October 2010, made illegal the U.S. enforcement of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and 10 U.S.C. § 654, the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service. The Associated Press reports that the federal appeals court agreed Friday to re-impose the stay on Phillip’s worldwide order they had lifted on July 6 – but with a provision tha