GAY TRUTH

May 22, 2014 ( FRC ) - Federal judges seem to have entered into an echo chamber of political correctness in their recent rulings in support of the homosexual redefinition of marriage. They ignore or deny obvious truths (like the importance of procreation to the natural definition of marriage), while dogmatically asserting as true things which are either blatantly false or inherently unknowable. The May 19, 2014 decision by U. S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane ( Geiger v. Kitzhaber ), striking down Oregon ’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, was yet another example. I will not bother going through his decision point by point to refute it, since it varies little from the similar decisions handed down by other judges in recent months. Those interested in why these judges have it wrong should refer to the recent  FRC paper ,  Marriage on Trial: State Laws Defining Marriage as the Union of One Man and One Woman Are Valid under

Cook County judge is member of homosexual judges group, advocated for “gay” cause; pro-family attorneys say she should recuse herself from case Cook County Circuit Court Judge Sophia Hall as she appears in 2007 photo of her being honored along with 13 other openly homosexual judges. (See larger photo below.) Hall is a member of a Chicago -area homosexual judges group that celebrates homosexual unions and marches annually in Chicago’s “ Gay Pride ” parade. CHICAGO—Cook County Circuit Court  Judge Sophia Hall  – who will rule on combined pro-homosexual lawsuits challenging  Illinois ’ existing law defining marriage as one-man, one-woman — is an open lesbian and pro-homosexuality advocate, according to information widely available online but which has gone unreported by the media. Judge Hall’s homosexuality is not a secret, nor an ”open secret” –as it was with   Vaughn Walker , the California judge who last year issued a decision overturning that state’s Proposition 8 marr

Same sex marriage has become the issue of our time. Michael Kinsley summed the situation nicely: “You may be in favor of raising taxes on the rich, increasing support for the poor, nurturing the planet, and repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act , but if you don’t support gay marriage, you’re out of the club.” How did this come to pass? There’s no easy answer, which is not surprising. Same sex marriage is the issue because lots of different interests, concerns, and trends converge on it. The first thing to say is that the gay rights movement has been largely an upper middle class project. Thurgood Marshall attended Lincoln University, an all-black college in southeastern Pennsylvania, and then Howard University Law School . Gay activist Larry Kramer went to Yale. Judge Vaughn Walker went to Stanford Law School . I have little doubt that the first gay Supreme Court Justice will be a graduate of either Yale or Harvard Law Schools. There are many reasons why the gay rights

English: Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker, in 2008 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Megan Tooker, Chief Executive and General Counsel for the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board — the very person charged with conducting a fair and impartial investigation into the complaint — worked for Supreme Court Justice Michael Streit, one of the judges we helped remove from office during the 2010 judicial retention campaign! Talk about an apparent conflict of interest. It's no wonder that Ms. Tooker has in effect already publicly "convicted" NOM in absentia through the press. Instead of giving the good people of Iowa ethical and impartial service, Ms. Tooker has revealed her deep bias and animosity by declaring, without seeing any evidence in the case, that NOM is "absolutely false" and "absolutely wrong" in its position. Worse, she has blatantly lied to the public and media by misrepres

The author of the Supreme Court's DOMA decision, which stated that advocates of traditional marriage are motivated by bigotry, has denied a petition to prevent California from resuming same-sex “marriages.” The high court released a statement yesterday stating tersely, "Justice [Anthony] Kennedy denied the application on his own, without further comment." Justice Anthony Kennedy dismissed the emergency motion. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) issued the  emergency motion  Saturday on behalf of the California residents who attempted to protect Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Among these is Dennis Hollingsworth of  Hollingsworth v. Perry . The Supreme Court ruled that the people of California lacked standing to defend the case in federal court after Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the constitutional amendment unconstitutional shortly after its passage in November 2008. The Nint

WASHINGTON, D.C. , March 28, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – A recently discovered cache of e-mails raises the question of whether Vaughn R. Walker , the judge who blocked California’s Proposition 8 which protected traditional marriage , had an inappropriately close relationship with the attorneys who argued the case before him. The legal blog  Patterico’s Ponderings  has published an  e-mail exchange  between Vaughn R. Walker, the judge who blocked California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, and the law partner of Ted Olson , an attorney who argued against the bill during the trial in 2010 and is currently arguing against it again before the U.S. Supreme Court . Retired Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8. The e-mails portray a close relationship between the two men, with Walker seeking to avoid harming Olson’s case, even accidentally, and discussing plans for a Christmastime gathering. According to the e-mails posted by Patterico.com, Walker, who is

I salute the LNP for repealing pro- homosexual laws. To accept Homosexual marriage and homosexual surrogacy we are going into an  unprecedented social experiment, the final, formal severing of marriage from procreation, in which, liberal optimism notwithstanding, nobody has any idea how it’s going to turn out.  I have, as someone who supports traditional marriage , all sorts of reasons to believe that children are better off not only when raised in a stable household , but a stable household with a mom and a dad. If nothing else, it’s an article of faith, a plank that gets built in once we allow ourselves to be shaped by revelation. This is the kind of research by Regnerus, Queenslanders need to take a hard look at in the context of the ongoing efforts to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples and surrogacy.  Being of children raised in gay or lesbian households, and it raises serious concerns about how safe and stable an environment that is for those children. The LNP are