Gay-marriage backers seek to turn tide in votes in 4 states

The Washington Times ^ | June 17, 2012 | Cheryl Wetzstein

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Gay marriage dominates the list of “social-issue” ballot measures going to voters this year, with amendments for and against same-sex unions up in four “blue” states:

• In Minnesota, voters will be asked to amend their state constitution to say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Amendments like this have already passed in 31 states, including North Carolina in May. The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment was put on the ballot by lawmakers in 2011, a few months after Republicans took over the state Legislature for the first time in 38 years.

• In Maine, gay-marriage supporters held a petition drive to allow voters to weigh in on a measure legalizing gay marriage. The Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom clarifies that, if approved, it would not require clergy to perform gay marriages if it violates their beliefs.

• In Maryland and in Washington state, residents are working to repeal gay-marriage laws enacted this year by their state lawmakers. In Washington, state officials have already certified Referendum 74 for the ballot, and in Maryland, residents have already submitted 120,000 signatures — more than twice what is needed — to state officials to add their measure to the ballot.

Early polls put these four measures as tossups or victories for gay-marriage supporters.

Gay-marriage advocates are eager to finally win in the voting booth.

“We’ve shown that we can win court cases. We’ve shown we can win legislatures. We’ve shown we can win Republicans as well as Democrats,” Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, told Rolling Stone earlier this month.

“So the one thing they say we can’t do is win a ballot measure, and we want to take that talking point away from them this year,” said Mr. Wolfson.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Maryland “Freak State” PING!

[theBuckwheat]

God defines marriage, not the State. Any “marriage” a State defines is just as much as legal fiction as when it tells us that a corporation is a “person”.

Jesus tells us that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. Scripture in many ways and places also tells us that God defines sexual morality and that people who refuse to practice that morality cannot qualify for the freely given gift of eternal life.

The State attempts to force us to recognize its power. One way is to presume the power to define who is married and who is not. We cede this power in part because we allow the State to tax incomes and estates, so to administer such taxing power, the State must define who it considers to be “married” and who is not. Just as when it defines a corporation to be a “person”, the State does not hesitate to define anyone it pleases as being “married, totally apart from how God would define it.

If you review the arguments advanced by supporters of same-sex marriage, you will find that a lot of them are related to taxation, inheritance and medical issues. But existing law addresses those and any defects in the law can be easily repaired apart from the issue of “marriage”.

I don’t want a government that can tell me what I may or may not do in the privacy of my own home or relationships. In a Constitutional Republic with a provision that prohibits Congress from making any law respecting religion, I have to allow others to have their own beliefs and morality. I can only be an advocate for the morality and beliefs that I think are true. I take my understanding of sexual morality from Scripture and that is where I learn that God considers sodomy to be an abomination.

If a State decides that two (or more) people can marry, if that is all that happened, I could live with that because I don’t have to approve, change my beliefs or what beliefs I pass on to my children.

However, once gays have sufficient influence with a State to redefine marriage, gays don’t stop there. They use the State to forbid me from acting on my morality and beliefs. In fact, the State in some cases forces me to accommodation in their practices.

If I have children in public school, the State will insist on teaching them that gay marriage is just as normal as godly marriage. You will be sanctioned as a parent if you attempt to remove your child from such indoctrination.

If you run a business that could provide services to gays, you will be sanctioned if you decline to treat them as any other customer. For example, if you run a wedding photography business, you will be sanctioned if you decline to photograph a gay wedding.

In short, gays will jam their lifestyle down our throats because when the State says they are equal it is forbidden for a private citizen to dissent from that status. In doing so, they seek to force me to give them approval for something that I will never approve of. It is that last point that galls gays the most.

Curiously, when liberal advocates of gay marriage are asked if their policy also would allow polygamy or polyandry, they recoil in horror and insist that it does not. However, logic demands that it does. I would ask how same-sex parents are going to react in the future when Utah public schools insist on indoctrinating the children that LDS-related polygamy is just as “normal” as same-sex “marriage”. The fact that this will be an issue will show yet again that gay “marriage” is not about marriage at all, it is about forcing the rest of us to approve of repugnant sexual immorality, something that LDS polygamists never demanded.

[Lionheartusa1]

2.8% of our population dictating policy to the other 97.2% ,,,,, now that’s perverted for sure . Perverts rule !!!!

[cuban leaf]

—Early polls put these four measures as tossups or victories for gay-marriage supporters.

Gay-marriage advocates are eager to finally win in the voting booth. —

Two interesting statements there. And here is the key phrase: “finally win”.

Every single time homosexual marriage is decided in the ballot box it is defeated.

Every. Single. Time.

[cuban leaf]

—2.8% of our population dictating policy to the other 97.2%—

I AM THE 97.2%!

Let’s start an OBH movement: Occupy Bath House!

Uh, maybe not...

[sickoflibs]

RE :”• In Maryland and in Washington state, residents are working to repeal gay-marriage laws enacted this year by their state lawmakers. In Washington, state officials have already certified Referendum 74 for the ballot, and in Maryland, residents have already submitted 120,000 signatures — more than twice what is needed — to state officials to add their measure to the ballot.”

There are not many reasons for a conservative to vote in Maryland but these two initiatives : (homo-)same sex-marriage repeal and repeal of the Dream (illegal alien college tuition ) Act are two really good ones.

The fix is in to give Maryland to Obama, as it was to give it to Romney (in the R primary) and McCain's R primary in 2008. Those repeal acts above are much less predictable because they will get black votes on the ballot when separate.

[JCBreckenridge]

“clarifies that, if approved, it would not require clergy to perform gay marriages if it violates their beliefs.”

Yeah, right, just like Obamacare didn’t force Catholics to fund abortion and contraception.

This issue isn’t going away. We’re going to have to fight it every ballot every state.

[NewHampshireDuo]

In 2008, Maine’s legislature sneaked in a late night measure legalizing gay “marriage.” The response was a ballot initiative to repeal the measure. That won handily. Now the gay forces are back again and it will be on the ballot this year. Hopefully it will get trounced again but it’s hard to say.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”“clarifies that, if approved, it would not require clergy to perform gay marriages if it violates their beliefs.”
.....
Yeah, right, just like Obamacare didn’t force Catholics to fund abortion and contraception”

Good point, the Obama phony ‘compromise’ to the Church that changed nothing and did nothing was a smoke screen to give those ‘on the fence’ an excuse to flush the constitution down the toilet.

Much like that con-job Maryland Churches (and institutions) would have to recognize same-sex marriages like every other institution would with this act and (Dem gov) O malley is lying. O Malley is a pathological liar.

O Malley is much like Obama except he has no opposing party to worry about so he almost gets a black check, so you can see what they really want to do.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


The TRUTH about Myth Romney ("Celestial God-Child from Planet Kolob") ...

and his "enthusiastic" support for GAY Marriage ...


It was orginally posted at Free Republic by "SoConPubbie" on Father's Day 2012 ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2896191/posts



===========================================



Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders

(This letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006.)



December 20, 2006


The Honorable W. Mitt Romney Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts The State House Boston, MA 02133


Dear Governor Romney:


You have a few weeks left in your term to take action on the issue of marriage. Contrary to opinions offered up by liberal commentators, liberal legal authorities, and perhaps even your own staff, you have the authority as Governor to reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage. The signatories below urge you to declare immediately that homosexual “marriage” licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.


As is increasingly well known, the Massachusetts Constitution denies the Judicial Branch any role in marriage policy:


"All causes of marriage...shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)


In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution: g[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)


Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.


Your oath to uphold the Constitution requires treating an unconstitutional opinion as void (as President Thomas Jefferson did in Marbury v. Madison). You failed to do this. Nor did you treat it as an illegal ruling that affected only the specific plaintiffs (as Abraham Lincoln did, refusing to accept the Dred Scott ruling as law, pointing out that judges do not make law).


Instead, you asserted that the courtfs opinion was a glaw" and thus binding. Though the Legislature never revoked the actual law, you issued . with no legal authority -- the first ghomosexual marriageh licenses in American history.


The Massachusetts Constitution does not confirm either your statements or your actions:

"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)


The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)


In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.


"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)


We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:


"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)


We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:


"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)


We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."


As for your claims about the authority of Goodridge and its illegal 180-day instruction to the Legislature, the same court had admitted in 1992 that they cannot issue an order to the legislature or the governor:


"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."


"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)


We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)


We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute: gHere, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."


In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h


Moreover, we note that nothing in the Goodridge ruling asked or pretended to authorize the governor to violate the statute in the event that the Legislature would not repeal it.


We also note that the statute remains in the Massachusetts General Laws, and has never been stricken, suspended or nullified. The court itself has previously clarified your obligation:


"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)


Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.


We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage,h and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign.


This emboldened other local officials, including the mayor of Boston, to boast publicly that they would break the law by "marrying" out-of-state homosexual couples . also a crime under c. 207 ˜48.


In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it. Therefore:

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.


We note that you swore no oath to execute court opinions, but rather laws and the Constitution. The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986: [The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793)


You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against assault from the other two branches. You swore on a Holy Bible, and said, "So help me, God." Your oath itself declares that it is violated on penalty of perjury, a felony.


Like much of America, many of us accepted as sincere your explanations of your role in this social and constitutional crisis that is fundamentally altering the moral fabric of our culture and eroding basic building block of human society. We are now forced to look at your role, as constitutional sentry and a gatekeeper of our form of government, in a different light.


We would be greatly disappointed if your principal contribution to history will be imposing homosexual marriage -- knowingly or unknowingly, willfully or negligently -- in violation of the state Constitution you swore to uphold.


We urge you in the strongest possible way to fulfill the obligation imposed by the Constitution of Massachusetts upon the "Supreme Executive Magistrate" to uphold Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207 the marriage statute, by declaring immediately in a formal, written executive order that the Goodridge court cannot overrule the Constitution and that homosexual marriage therefore remains against the law.


We urge you also to issue immediately a public memorandum from the Office of the Governor declaring members of the Legislature to be engaged in a conspiracy against the Constitution, to which the oath of office attaches the penalties of perjury -- a felony.


We urge you to immediately notify the legislators who openly conspired against the Constitution in denying the first marriage amendment petition a vote in 2002 that:

they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and

as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and

therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations

unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and

will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).


Under conditions of repeated and systematic constitutional abuse, these steps by a governor are the minimum required to defend constitutional democracy and our republican form of government.


Signed,

Paul Weyrich, Free Congress Foundation
*Sandy Rios, Culture Campaign
*Gary Kreep, Esq., president, United States Justice Foundation ++
*Robert Knight, a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act Linda Harvey, Mission America
Rev. Ted Pike, National Prayer Network
Randy Thomasson, Campaign for Children and Families
Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth
Dr. Chuck Baldwin, radio host, columnist
Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer
Rev. Stephen Bennett, Stephen Bennett Ministries
Phil Lawler, Catholic World News
Rev. Scott Lively, Esq., Defend the Family
*Dr. William Greene, RightMarch.com
Michael Heath, Christian Civic League of Maine
David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute
Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Micah Clark, American Family Association of Indiana
Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation
Stephen Cable, Vermont Center for American Cultural Renewal
Joe Glover, Family Policy Network (National)
Terry Moffitt, Family Policy Network of North Carolina
Marnie Deaton, Family Policy Network of Virginia
Danny Eason, Family Policy Network of Texas

Matt Chancey, Family Policy Network of Alabama
Ron Shank, Family Policy Network of Tennessee
*John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D., leading expert on the medical risks of homosexuality
Sonja Dalton, Real Civil Rights Illinois
Allyson Smith, Americans for Truth/California
Brian Camenker, MassResistance
Bunny S. Galladora, Woman's Christian Temperance Union
Dr. Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute
James Hartline, The Hartline Report
Jan Markell, Olive Tree Ministries & Radio
Bill Cotter, Operation Rescue Boston
R. T. Neary, ProLife Massachusetts
Mike O'Neil, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
John F. Russo, Marriage & Family, Massachusetts
*Stacy Harp, Active Christian Media, host, The Right View
Rena Havens, Mothers Against Pedophilia
John Haskins, Parentsf Rights Coalition
Rev. Michael Carl, Constitution Party of Massachusetts
Carl Parnell, author, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse

Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only and do not imply a formal endorsement or commitment by those organizations.

.

[StonyBurk]

Headline misrepresents facts. There is NO such thing as Gay Marriage/nor same sex marriage. There is FRAUD and FANTASY but
nothing new under the sun. When two reprobates call their
relationship “marriage” it is Fraud —it is a LIE from HELL
itself When Americans accept the fraud we are beguiled. As Dr.Kelly Hollowell wrote for WND some years ago “IT’S DILUTION STUPID!” If it were right Why was it criminal -even to the point of Infamy for so many years. The behavior has Not changed since Sodom and Gomorrah has it?

[ReformationFan]

That about sums it up.

[SoFloFreeper]

Does anyone know of polling on these states?

[hoagy62]

Every single time homosexual marriage is decided in the ballot box it is defeated. Every. Single. Time.

I don't know the situations in the other 3 states, and I hate to say it, but my state of Washington may be the first to approve gay marriage in a popular vote. Here's why...

Back a couple of years ago, we had R-71, also known as the "Everything But Marriage" bill, that allowed greater rights for homosexuals. It was a contentious vote. In the end, the majority of the counties in the state rejected it. Every county east of the Cascade Range and most of the counties in the southwest part of the state voted 'No'.

However, seven counties....just seven...voted 'Yes' and caused it to pass. Of those 7 counties, 4 of them don't have huge populations, but those they have are very liberal. The others are 3 of the 4 counties with the biggest populations in the state...Thurston (home of Olympia, the state capitol), Snohomish, and of course...King County, home of Seattle and a large VERY liberal population.

Being that the demographics haven't changed all that much in the 3 or 4 years since the R-71 vote, I fully expect the vote will fall along the same lines, with the same results.

Unless a miracle occurs in the same class as the parting of the Red Sea, that's what's going to happen.

(Not to mention, of course, the propensity for massive voter fraud in King County. If the high muckety-mucks in King County want it to happen, it will happen.)

[LibertarianLiz]

And “gay” marriage will be defeated AGAIN! Twice as many signatures as needed and these guys are still writing that “gay” marriage will “finally” be approved at the ballot box? Delusional.

[Ransomed]

Arizona 2006 failed, Arizona 2008 then passed.

When I look at % the amendments passed by, how conservative the state is, when they passed, I don’t think the trend is too positive over time. Yes, they have a wonderful success rate. But what will it be in 10 years? In 20? In 30? I mean 30 years ago the issue of ‘gay marriage’ wasn’t even on the radar. Folks would have thought you were wacked if you said in 1982 only 61% of the voters of 2012 NC would think traditional state recognition of marriage was the way to go.

Freegards

[cuban leaf]

—Being that the demographics haven’t changed all that much in the 3 or 4 years since the R-71 vote, I fully expect the vote will fall along the same lines, with the same results.—

It changed in one way: I lived in the greater Seattle area for 45 years and permanently moved to central, rural Kentucky last August. And your posts sums up many of the reasons why.

That and traffic. ;-)

I know pretty much every nook and cranny of King county. I contracted all over the place and moved around a lot the lat 15 years. And I usually bicycle commuted the last 20 years. But cell phones and texting make it a very dangerous proposition now.

[Lionheartusa1]

In the freak state of Maryland when an unpopular bill is repealed on a ballot referendum the state legislature simply passes it again in the next legislative session and if it is repealed again by the voters they simply repeat the process of passing it again til the voting public submits . Three counties of the 23 counties in Md. which are heavily loaded with minorities decide how the other 20 counties must live . Exactly the same way the 2.8% of faggots operate . Blasphemy in either case .

[Lionheartusa1]

Send the entire fag population to one state ,,, perhaps Calif. and let them have at it , with any luck at all Calif. one day might slide into the sea solving the problem . Homosexuality is blasphemy as clearly stated in the bible . 2.8% of anything can hardly be considered normal .