GAY TRUTH

A federal appeals court has ordered Christian clerk Kim Davis to provide same-sex “marriage” licenses, but she’s refusing to give in. Davis, a Democrat,  says that her Christian beliefs  will not allow her to issue licenses for same-sex “marriages.” Despite pressure from Democrat Gov. Steve Beshear ,  a lawsuit from the ACLU , and two federal court rulings, Davis has refused to issue any licenses while the matter is still working its way through the courts. However, the Sixth District Court of Appeals said Davis must issue the licenses. While critics say Davis must follow the law as a public employee, she says the First Amendment protects her decision even as a government worker. In addition to being sued by the ACLU, she has pro-actively taken her case to court.   Beshear told all government employees that "you can continue to have your own personal beliefs, but, you’re also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at th...

Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Some arguments just have to be made, and made well. In the case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit , the moment for such an argument arrived last week when that court had to rule on appeals over the question of same-sex marriage coming from the four states in its federal jurisdiction, Michigan , Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In each case, Federal District Courts had struck down measures banning same-sex marriage. Now, the question loomed before the three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit. Until last week, no federal appeals court had ruled against same-sex marriage in the aftermath of the U. S. Supreme Court ’s 2013 Windsordecision striking down the federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]. That changed when the panel of the Sixth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the measure limiting marriage to one man and one woman in the four covered states. The ...

Just yesterday, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston declared that part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. The federal definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman has applied to all federal laws, regulations and benefits since 1996. This lawsuit involves claims from same-sex couples demanding federal benefits that are reserved for heterosexual couples. Essentially, the appellate court said the federal government—and by extension, the taxpayers in all 50 states—must subsidize whatever types of arrangements a state may choose to call "marriage." Think about that for minute. In the 1800s, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to forbid polygamy in any territory wishing to apply for statehood. But the federal appeals court in Boston today ignored that history and declared Congress has no interest in keeping the definition of marriage the same as it has been for thousands of years. The U.S. ...

... In 2010, Jennifer Keeton, 24, sued after the college required her to complete a remediation program or face expulsion for her anti-gay beliefs . Her lawsuit states that her views on gays were known to faculty at the university because of her “disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian ‘lifestyle.’”' ... Keeton has already been rebuffed by the courts. Earlier this year, a U.S. district judge ruled in the university’s favor. In supporting Augusta State in its actions, the judge wrote, “The record suggests, and the testimony at the hearing bolsters, the Plan was imposed because Plaintiff exhibited an inability to counsel in a professionally ethical manner – that is, an inability to resist imposing her moral viewpoint on counselees – in violation of the ACA Code of Ethics.” A classmate testified that Keeton said she would be compelled by her beliefs to tell gay or lesbian counseling clients that their behaviors were morally wr...

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...