GAY TRUTH

LOUISVILLE, KY, February 12, 2014 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – A federal judge ruled today that the state of Kentucky must recognize same-sex “marriages” conducted in other states, or even other countries. A legal expert warns the ruling could open the door to recognition of polygamous marriages contracted in foreign nations. Judge John G. Heyburn II U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II of the Western District of Kentucky ruled that, while the state did not have to conduct same-sex “marriages” itself, it must grant full marital benefits to couples who live in the state but had nuptials conducted elsewhere. In 2004, 75 percent of the state's electorate approved a marriage protection amendment. Four gay and lesbian couples brought the lawsuit. One of the couples, Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon of Louisville, were “married” in Canada. Others received a marriage license in Iowa, Connecticut, and California. "If the decision is upheld, Kentucky will have to rec

Indeed, when the history of the marriage debate comes to be written, the events of the beginning of 2014 may become the chapter entitled, "The Same-sex 'Marriage' Lobby's Boldest Overreaching." This chapter begins with a single federal judge... The ruling from District Court Judge Robert Shelby in Utah handed down December 20th was  an unexpected shock   for marriage supporters around the nation. Coming, as it did, hot on the heels of  another federal court decision in Utah  that ruled to de-criminalize religious plural marriages (i.e., polygamous unions), Shelby's ruling added insult to an already injured state legislature and citizenry. Utah's voters and lawmakers alike probably found themselves wondering whether they had any say in their State's values at all anymore. Then came yet another unexpected plot twist. Following failed applications for a stay of Shelby's decision both in the District court and in the 10th Circuit Court of

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

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK , January 15, 2014 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – The state of Oklahoma approved a state constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage by a three-to-one margin in 2004. But on Tuesday, a federal judge struck the amendment down, branding it an "arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens  from a governmental benefit ." In a  68-page opinion , U.S. District Judge Terence Kern said the state constitution's definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution .” “Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed,” he wrote. In 2004, more than 75 percent of state voters approved Oklahoma Question 711 , which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, barred the state from recognizing same-sex “marriages” contracted in other states, and made issuing a marriage

In an attempt to combat polygamy in their state, Utah ’s bigamy law not only criminalized multiple marriage licenses, it also outlawed the cohabitation of multiple women with one man—even if only one of the women had a legal marriage license—to prevent polygamists from using this loophole to skirt the law. This second part of Utah’s law was recently struck down by a U.S. District Judge , allowing for polygamy in practice, though it’s still not recognized by the state: U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that the [cohabitation] aspect is too broad because it bars consenting adults from living together and criminalizes their intimate sexual relationships. He said the law violates both the First Amendment's clause ensuring religious rights and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause designed to ensure liberty. The rest of Utah's bigamy law remains intact under the ruling, so only individuals who fraudulently obtain multiple marriage licenses would be guilty. Je

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Yesterday's emergency ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court not only ended a record run of nearly 1,000 marriages in Utah . The apparently unanimous decision to temporarily restore Utah's state law banning same-sex marriages suggests this case could be the legal battle both sides of the debate have been waiting for . In June, the Supreme Court managed to rule on two separate cases involving same-sex marriage without ruling on the merits of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Now court watchers are assessing whether the unusually straightforward legal case in Utah likely makes it , as NPR suggests , "the case that forces the high court to wrestle [directly] with the big issue." Past cases have involved multiple legal questions or technical issues that have allowed courts to issue rulings without addressing the merits of the core issue. Kitchen v. Herbert has no technical issues and no legal q

Today a judge struck down Utah's 2004 ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. If the ruling stands, Utah would become the 18th state to permit gays and lesbians to wed. The Associated Press reports : U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a 53-page ruling Friday saying Utah's law passed by voters in 2004 violates gay and lesbian couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Shelby says the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way, and the state's unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify deny allowing same-sex marriages. Update (Dec. 19): New Mexico has become the 17th state (plus D.C.) to l egalize same-sex marriage , after the state's supreme court ruled today that denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples is unconstitutional. The Washington Post notes : Many counties in New Mexico had already been issuing marriage licenses to

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