Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress yesterday that President Obama had ordered the Department of Justice to cease all efforts to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts. The announcement came without public warning, even as the administration was dealing with an international crisis in Libya and a political showdown over unions in Wisconsin.

The Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] emerged in 1996 as at least one state - Hawaii - indicated the very real possibility that it would vote to approve same-sex marriage. The Act makes clear that no state can require any other state to recognize a same-sex marriage, and that the federal government is prohibited from extending marital benefits to same-sex couples. The Senate approved the measure by a vote of 85 to 14. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 342 to 67. Faced with such overwhelming congressional support, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

But 1996 was a long time ago, politically and culturally speaking. President Obama vigorously and repeatedly declared his opposition to DOMA during the presidential campaign of 2008.

In subsequent statements, President Obama had indicated his hope that Congress would repeal the measure. That was unlikely, though Sen. Diane Feinstein signaled late Wednesday her intention to offer legislation to repeal DOMA. She did so only after the White House made its announcement.

President Obama’s decision to enforce but not to defend DOMA in the courts is not without precedent, but such presidential actions are extremely rare. The President is required by the Constitution and his oath of office to enforce the nation’s laws, but he has instructed his Attorney General no longer to defend the law in the courts. In essence, this seals the judicial fate of the Defense of Marriage Act - it is now left without its most important defender.

What makes this decision even more unusual is that the Obama Administration had previously taken action to defend DOMA against legal claims. Faced with new court challenges and protests from gay rights groups and editorials in the liberal media, the President changed his mind.

In his letter to Congress, Attorney General Holder stated, “As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government.” And yet Mr. Holder proceeded to argue that there were no reasonable arguments to be made in defense of DOMA. “This is the rare case,” he asserted, “where the proper course is to forgo the defense of the statute.”

Addressing reporters in a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney defended President Obama, arguing that his position on DOMA “has been consistent.” The President “has long opposed it as unnecessary and unfair.” Carney also said that the administration had been forced to act, having been given a deadline by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District, which is currently hearing a case challenging DOMA on constitutional grounds.

Who could possibly be surprised by this action? During his campaign for the nation’s highest office, President Obama made his advocacy for homosexual rights clearly and unambiguously. He attacked DOMA and called for its repeal. Even as pundits suggest he is moving to the political center, in the course of the past few days, the President has revoked the Bush-era conscience protections for medical personnel and betrayed marriage by ceasing the defense of DOMA. If anything, these moves represent a shift even further to the left.

Clearly, the President believes that he has sufficient political support to make this move. While gay rights groups have been pressuring the administration for this kind of action, in the first two years of his term, the President clearly felt that such a move would be too politically expensive and risky. No longer.

Is the President right in thinking that he will not be hurt politically by this action? The game played by many liberal politicians in general, and by Democratic politicians in particular, is to say that they are personally opposed to same-sex marriage, even as they work to remove all defenses against it. The political game played by many conservatives, by the way, is to pose as defenders of marriage without taking any action that would draw political risk. Remember that when conservative politicians now call for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Where were they when such an action would have required courage but was politically viable and clearly needed?

In the press briefing, Jay Carney said that the President’s personal position on same-sex marriage is “distinct from this legal decision.” Last December, President Obama told reporters that his personal position on same-sex marriage is “constantly evolving.”

Well, there may be issues in which the distinction between the legal and the moral arguments makes a real difference, but this is not one of those issues. To suggest that President Obama does not personally support same-sex marriage is to posit a dualism within him that is nothing less than Gnostic. Mr. Carney would do better to stick with his argument that the President’s support of the gay rights movement is consistent. It is not credible for the President now to play Hamlet on the question of his own position on same-sex marriage.

The most immediate meaning of this announcement is two-fold. In the first place, it means that the constitutionally appointed defender of the nation’s laws, the Attorney General of the United States, has now been ordered to cease defending this single law in the courts. That alone is almost surely sufficient to spell the doom of DOMA in short order.

In the second place, this announcement means that President Obama and his advisers now believe that the full legalization of same-sex marriage is both inevitable and without major political risk to the President and his plans for re-election. That, in itself, represents a moral earthquake. The President clearly believes that a sufficient number of Americans will either support or accept same-sex marriage - and this comes just a few years after a majority of the states passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, and most by huge margins.

The President has made his decision. The Attorney General has now made his announcement. Mark your calendars for yesterday. That day now represents a tragic milestone in the betrayal of marriage.

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

>>Conservative Christians: It Won’t Stop at Gay Marriage (Christian Post, 100816)

WASHINGTON – Conservative Christians are not intimidated by the advances that same-sex marriage advocates have been making in the U.S.

In fact, they believe they’re getting stronger and that now is not the time to give up.

“With every so-called defeat, more people come forward and say ‘Enough is enough. We need to stand up for marriage,’” said Brian Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, during a rally Sunday.

NOM just completed its “Summer for Marriage” bus tour and made its last stop in front of the U.S. Capitol. Brown visited 23 cities in 19 states proclaiming the message that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

He was met with hundreds of protesters, many of whom attempted to shout him down and disrupt the NOM rallies.

“I will say this: Let us meet any form of hatred here today with love because we know where we come from, we know who we are and we know what this fight is about,” he said Sunday in front of over a hundred supporters and dozens of protesters.

“It is about a profound love and respect for an institution that the government did not create; an institution that predates churches, governments ...; an institution that brings together the two great halves of humanity – male and female.”

Brown approached the crowd on Sunday with the same language that he believes gay rights advocates have been misusing.

“I believe that this fight is the beginning of a new civil rights movement, and I don’t say that in any shallow way,” he said.

He explained to The Christian Post in an interview ahead of the rally that “a lot of African-American leaders … are tired of their struggle being hijacked by those who are attempting to use the civil rights movement to redefine marriage.”

Pushing back against comparisons between laws banning interracial marriage with ones that prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying, Brown contended, “Marriage is not based upon race. It’s based upon the fact that there are men and women and men and women are brought together in marriage. So trying to compare same-sex marriage to overturning laws against interracial marriage is comparing apples to oranges.”

Brown said they are not fighting the marriage battle with Scripture, but with reason and the Constitution.

“Unaided reason alone tells us that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. We can understand by reason that marriage is that institution that brings men and women together and connects them with any children they may bear. No other relationship can do what marriage does. Our stand is based on the Constitution and is based on defending civil rights – our civil rights.”

The conservative and religious communities are fighting for the right to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage – rather than allowing legislature or the courts to rule on the issue. At the same time, they are also trying to defend their religious liberties.

If same-sex marriage was to win out in states across the entire country, Christians would begin to see lawsuits brought against them, warned Bishop Harry Jackson, a pastor from Beltsville, Md., who has been on the frontlines of the marriage debate in Washington.

The gay rights advocacy groups will not stop at marriage, he told The Christian Post.

Jackson likened them to “the bully in the playground.”

“They’re going to find some other way to take our lunch money,” he said.

Some of those attacks will be aimed at a minister’s sermon content.

“They’ll say it’s not right for us to preach our view of marriage because it’s an assault against another group’s civil rights and they’ll equate it to the preaching of the KKK,” he said. “It’s very serious.”

Also foreseeing the consequences, Brown pointed out that Christians will be accused of being bigots if language like the one seen in Judge Vaughn Walker’s recent decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 is put into law.

“Religious organizations are going to be punished if same-sex marriage stands in California and throughout the country. Why? Because we’re going to be told that we are the equivalent of bigots and the law saying that has a tremendous powerful effect,” Brown warned.

“When our children are taught in our schools that it’s the same thing for Jimmy to grow up and marry Johnny as it is to marry Mary, and that you, the parents, are bigots for teaching them otherwise? There is a core civil right that has just been abridged.”

Judge Walker ruled early this month that the state amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. He wrote in his opinion that the amendment was passed by 52% of California voters out of fear, “unarticulated dislike,” or moral disapproval for same-sex couples.

“The evidence at trial regarding the campaign to pass Proposition 8 uncloaks the most likely explanation for its passage: a desire to advance the belief that opposite-sex couples are morally superior to same-sex couples,” Judge Walker wrote.

Traditional marriage supporters expect the California marriage case to reach the Supreme Court where they are confident they will win.

“Same-sex marriage advocates have attempted to steal the right of the people to vote in the name of civil rights. [But] you’re stealing others’ civil rights,” Jackson commented.

“Runaway legislatures [and] overreaching judges have violated the spirit of the Constitution and betrayed the very heart of the American culture,” he added. “It is not going to work. It is not going to stand.”

Though same-sex marriage proponents are pushing the case that marriage is a fundamental right, Jackson argues otherwise.

“We discriminate in marriage,” he noted. “We will not let brothers and sisters marry. We will not let old people and really young people marry. We will not allow people to marry under a lot of different circumstances. “

“Once you say this is [a foundational right], their arguments are fairly logical. If you deny that this is a foundational right, it’s irrational from that point.”

With no plans to step back from the marriage fight, Bishop Jackson ultimately believes that marriage is an institution that was founded by God and a treasure to preserve.

“I don’t think in good conscience we can just let it go,” he commented. “I have a hard time believing that Jesus would say ‘Don’t stand up for what the Word says.’”

“Marriage, in its traditional form, is one of our nation’s greatest treasures. It’s the first schoolhouse; it’s the first church; it’s the first place where values are imparted one generation to another.”

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

>>High Court Blocks Judge’s Attempt to Broadcast Federal Prop 8 Trial (Christian Post, 100114)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against video streaming the high-profile federal court trial on California’s voter-approved marriage definition.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court overruled Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s decision to allow real-time streaming of the trial in San Francisco for viewing in other federal courthouses in California, New York, Oregon and Washington.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court criticized the federal judge for attempting to change the rules “at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials.”

“Not only did it (the District Court) ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue,” it stated. “If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.”

The high court’s conservative majority also noted that supporters of California’s Proposition 8 have been subjected to “harassment as a result of public disclosure of their support,” including death threats, confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages, lost jobs, Internet blacklists, boycotts, vandalism and physical violence.

According to lawyers defending Prop 8, Walker’s decision to stream the trial – first live to other courts and later to the public through YouTube – could have put Prop 8 witnesses at further risk.

“We are relieved that the United States Supreme Court intervened today to protect our witnesses from the harm that would come with televising the Prop 8 trial,” commented Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com.

“As we have said from the start, televising the proceedings in a high-profile case is unprecedented in federal court, and impedes our ability to get a fair and impartial trial,” he added. “Most importantly, putting Prop 8 supporters on the witness stand and broadcasting their testimony worldwide would virtually guarantee a serious risk of harm threatened by anti-Prop 8 extremists.”

Prop 8, which was passed by California voters in 2008 by a 52% vote, effectively defined marriage in the state’s constitution as the union of one man and one woman. The trial in San Francisco, which commenced Monday, seeks to determine whether gay marriage is a constitutional right and, in effect, whether the passing of Prop 8 violates that right.

The case, which will be watched closely by people on both sides of the marriage debate, could lead to a precedent for whether gay marriage becomes legal nationwide and, as traditional marriage advocates say, whether the nation’s democratic principles will be upheld.

Regardless of how the trial in San Francisco concludes, an appeal will likely be filed to the Supreme Court, which could end up determining whether gay Americans have a right to marry.

The case, which will be heard for another week or two, is Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

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

>>Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage Law (newsmax, 091104)

The vote to allow gay marriage in Maine was close but nonetheless a huge defeat for gay activists in a corner of the country considered most sympathetic to their cause.

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine voters dealt a severe blow to the gay rights movement by repealing a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry.

The vote was close but nonetheless a huge defeat for gay activists in a corner of the country considered most sympathetic to their cause.

Voter turnout was high and the money came pouring in from across the country: conservatives who opposed the law brought in $2.5 million and supporters drew $4 million.

Opponents of gay marriage will likely use the success of the ballot box in Maine as a blueprint to defeat efforts to legalize same-sex marriages in others parts of the country.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Gay-marriage supporters conceded early Wednesday.

“We’re in this for the long haul,” said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. “For next week, and next month and next year — until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.”

At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.

The outcome Tuesday marked the first time voters had rejected a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians put a stop to same-sex marriage a year ago, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

Five other states have legalized gay marriage — starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

The defeat left some gay-marriage supporters bitter.

“Our relationship is between us,” said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping for a victory party. “How does that affect anybody else? It’s a personal thing.”

The contest had been viewed by both sides as certain to have national repercussions. Gay-marriage foes desperately wanted to keep their winning streak alive, while gay-rights activists sought to blunt the argument that gay marriage was being foisted on the country by courts and lawmakers over the will of the people.

Had Maine’s law been upheld, the result would probably have energized efforts to get another vote on gay marriage in California, and given a boost to gay-marriage bills in New York and New Jersey.

Earlier Tuesday, before vote-counting began, gay-marriage foe Chuck Schott of Portland warned that Maine “will have its place in infamy” if the gay-rights side won.

Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was “very torn” but decided — despite her conservative upbringing — to vote in favor of letting gays marry.

“They love and they have the right to love. And we can’t tell somebody how to love,” said Holman, 26.

In addition to reaching out to young people who flocked to the polls for President Obama a year ago, gay-marriage defenders tried to appeal to Maine voters’ pronounced independent streak and live-and-let-live attitude.

The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims — disputed by state officials — that the new law would mean “homosexual marriage” would be taught in public schools.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state voted on whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. With half the precincts reporting, that race was too close to call.

In Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Among other ballot items across the U.S.:

— In Ohio, voters approved a measure that will allow casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo. Four similar measures had been defeated in recent years, but this time the state’s reeling economy gave extra weight to arguments that the new casinos would create thousands of jobs.

— Maine voters defeated a measure that would have limited state and local government spending by holding it to the rate of inflation plus population growth. A similar measure was on the ballot in Washington state.

— Another measure in Maine, which easily won approval, will allow dispensaries to supply marijuana to patients for medicinal purposes. It is a follow-up to a 1999 measure that legalized medical marijuana but did not set up a distribution system.

— The Colorado ski town of Breckenridge voted overwhelmingly to allow adults to legally possess small amounts of marijuana.

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

>>Maine Voters Repeal Gay Marriage Law (Christian Post, 091104)

After months of campaigning and millions of dollars in ads, traditional marriage supporters claimed victory at the ballot box with 53% of the vote.

“This has never been about gay rights,” said Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, according to the Los Angeles Times. “It’s about marriage, and this is reaffirmation by the people of Maine that marriage between men and women is special and unique.”

The state law legalizing same-sex marriage was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. John Baldacci in May. Before the law could go into effect in September, opponents submitted enough signatures for a “people’s veto,” subjecting the measure to repeal.

While gay rights advocates were hoping to make history by affirming same-sex marriage by popular vote, their votes came up short on Tuesday.

“Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Maine voters stood for equality, but in the end, it wasn’t enough,” said Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for No on 1/Protect Maine Equality.

He assured supporters that their efforts would not stop and that they were in this for the long haul “because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.”

Whenever given the opportunity, U.S. voters have upheld the traditional definition of marriage. Constitutional amendments affirming marriage as between one man and one woman have been passed in 29 states in the past 10 years and statutes to the same effect have been adopted in another 15 states, according to the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Recent polls have also shown that the majority of American voters continue to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. According to the Gallup Poll, 57% of Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should not be recognized by the law as valid while 40% say such marriages should be legal.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five states – Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire – all of which passed the laws through legislation or court rulings.

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

>>What He Could Have Said (BreakPoint, 080630)

By Chuck Colson

Defending Traditional Marriage

It was one of the more awkward moments in the presidential campaign. Senator John McCain was appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, and she was asking why McCain did not support same-sex “marriage.” A well-prepared DeGeneres made the usual arguments about inclusiveness, and compared those who reject same-sex “marriage” to those who once refused to allow women or blacks to vote. It was all about fairness, she said.

McCain’s response? “I just believe in the status of a marriage between a man and a woman . . . We just have a disagreement.”

Maybe, given the sensitivity of the situation, that was the best answer Senator McCain could come up with. But suppose the senator and Ms. DeGeneres could talk backstage, away from the glare of TV lights. What could he say to seize the moral high ground? To start, he could discuss the true meaning and purpose of marriage.

In his book, The Clash of Orthodoxies, Princeton professor Robert George writes that matrimonial law reflects a moral judgment. That judgment is that marriage is inherently heterosexual, monogamous, and permanent—a union of one man and one woman. This judgment is based on both the biblical and natural law understandings—that marriage is a two-in-one flesh communion of persons. This communion is consummated and actualized sexually.

That is, marriage is made real by acts that are reproductive, whether or not these acts result in children. They unite the spouses as a single procreative unit. This organic unity is achieved even by infertile couples. Only a mated pair can be a complete organism capable of human procreation.

By contrast, homosexual acts cannot be procreative and cannot unite people organically. As a result, these acts cannot be marital, which means relationships integrated around them cannot be marriages. In other words, same-sex partners are physically incapable of marriage; it takes a man and a woman to become “one flesh.”

I can already hear the arguments your secular neighbors will make: “Okay,” they will say, “that’s your definition of marriage. But why should your views be imposed on everybody else?”

That is when we have to be ready with additional, non-religious arguments for traditional marriage. For instance, if we expand the meaning of marriage to include same-sex partnerships, on what grounds could we legitimately oppose marriages between three or more people? Or weddings between siblings?

Remember, we are not just defending the Christian view of marriage. Since the beginning of recorded history, virtually every society and every major religion has revered and protected traditional marriage. Why? It is the institution that produces, nurtures, protects, and civilizes children. And marriage is the cornerstone of society’s foundational institution: the family.

If the proponents of same-sex “marriage” succeed in foisting it on America, marriage itself would be reduced to nothing more than a legal contract between two (or more!) people. True marriage would be abolished, and the damage to our society would be incalculable.

These are the arguments we all need to learn to defend traditional, true marriage, particularly in those states where constitutional amendments are on the ballot this fall.

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

>>The Coming Persecution (BreakPoint, 080701)

By Chuck Colson

How Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Will Harm Christians

It is all about equal rights, the gay “marriage” lobby keeps telling us. We just want the right to marry, like everyone else.

That is what they are telling us. But that is not what they mean. If same-sex “marriage” becomes the law of the land, we can expect massive persecution of the Church.

As my friend Jennifer Roback Morse notes in the National Catholic Register, “Legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a stand-alone policy . . . Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes.”

The bad news is these changes affect other liberties we take for granted, such as religious freedom and private property rights. Several recent cases give us a sobering picture of what we can expect if we do not actively embrace—and even promote—same-sex “marriage.”

For instance, a Methodist retreat center recently refused to allow two lesbian couples to use a campground pavilion for a civil union ceremony. The state of New Jersey punished the Methodists by revoking the center’s tax-exempt status—a vindictive attack on the Methodists’ religious liberty.

In Massachusetts, where judges imposed gay marriage a few years ago, Catholic Charities was ordered to accept homosexual couples as candidates for adoption. Rather than comply with an order that would be harmful to children, Catholic Charities closed down its adoption program.

California public schools have been told they must be “gay friendly,” as Roback Morse notes. But it will not stop with public schools. Just north of the border in Quebec, the government told a Mennonite school that it must conform to provincial law regarding curriculum—a curriculum that teaches children that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle. How long will it be before the U.S. government goes after private schools?

Even speaking out against homosexuality can get you fired. Crystal Dixon, an associate vice president at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing an opinion piece in the Toledo Free Press in support of traditional marriage . . . Fired—for exercising her First Amendment rights!

Promoters of same-sex “marriage” seem to go out of their way to target Christian businesses and churches. Their goal, it seems, is not the right to “marry,” but to punish anyone who disagrees with them.

Clearly, there is a spiritual battle going on here: Christians are under attack because they are a public witness to the fact that a holy God created us male and female, and we will always put obedience to Him and His laws above obedience to any earthly demand for loyalty.

The coming persecution of Christians is one more reason why we need to get involved with efforts to pass laws at the state and federal level defining marriage as a legal relationship between one man and one woman. We must protect, not only genuine marriage, but also many of the freedoms we now take for granted: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to use private property the way we see fit—all are under threat.

And we must tell our friends and neighbors why gay “marriage” is not just about equality: It is about forcing religious believers to accept the validity of the homosexual lifestyle—or else.

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

**Moral Revolution: New York State Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage (Christian Post, 110627)

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

The legal, social, moral, and political maps of America were redefined last Friday night as the New York State Senate voted 33-29 to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. The State Assembly had already approved the measure, leaving the Republican-controlled Senate the last battleground on the marriage issue. Shortly after the Senate approved the measure, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law. It will take effect in July, thirty days after the Governor’s signature was affixed.

It will be difficult to exaggerate the impact of New York’s move to legalize same-sex marriage. The statistics tell part of the story. New York State becomes the sixth state to recognize same-sex marriage, but its population is greater than that of the other five combined. When same-sex marriage is legal in New York next month, fully one in every nine Americans will live in a state or jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is legal. By any measure, this is a massive development in the nation’s legal and moral life.

Add to this the fact that California, the nation’s most populous state, is hanging in the balance as Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment passed by the state’s voters defining marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman, is now an issue before the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. It arrived at the appellate court after a federal judge in California ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. If California is added (again) to the states with legal same-sex marriage, more than a third of the nation’s citizens will live where same-sex marriage is the law of the land.

Furthermore, gay rights groups are counting on their New York victory to serve as a momentum-builder for similar efforts across the nation. At present, 29 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, while another twelve have laws against it. Marriage is expected to be soon on the ballot in Minnesota and North Carolina, where similar constitutional amendments are in development. On the other hand, same-sex marriage advocates intend to focus on the states of Maine and Maryland for renewed efforts toward legalization.

One crucial aspect of the New York development is the fact that same-sex marriage was legalized by legislation, and not by order of a court. Eventually, an unusual coalition led by the Governor Andrew Cuomo and major Republican donors pushed the measure through the Senate, even though Republicans had prevented even a vote on such a measure in recent years. As dusk set in in Albany on Friday, the fate of marriage appeared to rest on one Republican senator, whose crucial vote would determine the margin for or against the chamber taking the vote. In the end, the measure reached the floor, where it passed by a four-vote margin.

One of the lessons learned in this sad spectacle is the fact that enough Republican senators changed their positions on the issue under intense pressure, thus enabling the passage of the legislation. The same was true for the minority of Democratic senators who had previously voted against the measure. One of these, Carl Kruger, changed his vote because the nephew of the woman Kruger lives with was so outraged over the issue that he had cut the couple off from an ongoing relationship. “I don’t need this,” the Senator told a colleague, “It has gotten personal now.”

Well, of course it has. But what this statement really means is that many Americans, including many in the political class, simply fold their moral convictions when they conflict with the lifestyles or convictions of a friend or relative.

Thus far, whenever the people of a state have had their say, marriage has been defended as the union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage has been made legal by courts (such as in Iowa and Massachusetts) and by legislatures in some northeastern states. If current trends continue, the American map of marriage will reveal a deep and consequential division between states which recognize same-sex marriage and those who do not.

Given the central importance of marriage to our civilization and culture, it is hard to imagine how such a mixed moral landscape can last. Add to this the fact that President Obama has instructed his own Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in courts.

In the end, it is difficult to know how one can exaggerate the importance of the New York’s shift on marriage. New York is not merely a highly populous state - it also includes the nation’s most significant city in terms of economics, business, and cultural influence.

The legalization of same-sex marriage represents nothing less than a moral revolution, for what the law allows and recognizes, it also approves. Last Friday was a sad day for marriage and, if the advocates of same-sex marriage are right, it was also a sign of things to come.

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

**New York to Become the Sixth State to Legalize Gay Marriage (Foxnews, 110624)

ALBANY, N.Y. – New York is poised to become the sixth, and largest, state to legalize same-sex marriage after the state Senate voted late Friday in favor of a gay marriage bill. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has promised to sign it, and gay weddings could begin 30 days later.

The measure, which the Democratic-controlled Assembly in an earlier version, was backed by 4 Republicans and 29 Democrats in the GOP-controlled Senate.

“We are leaders and we join other proud states that recognize our families and the battle will now go on in other states,” said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Democrat.

Gay rights advocates are hoping the vote will galvanize the movement around the United States and help it regain momentum after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

Though New York is a relative latecomer in allowing gay marriage, it is considered an important prize for advocates, given the state’s size and New York City’s international stature and its role as the birthplace of the gay rights movement, which is considered to have started with the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village in 1969.

The New York bill cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate on a 33-29 vote. The Democrat-led Assembly, which passed a different version last week, is expected to pass the new version with stronger religious exemptions.

The effects of the law could be felt well beyond New York: Unlike Massachusetts, which pioneered gay marriage in 2004, New York has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning the state could become a magnet for gay couples across the country who want to have a wedding in Central Park, the Hamptons, the romantic Hudson Valley or that honeymoon hot spot of yore, Niagara Falls.

New York, the nation’s third most populous state, will join Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the Washington capital district in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

For five months in 2008, gay marriage was legal in California, the biggest state in population, and 18,000 same-sex couples rushed to tie the knot there before voters overturned the state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the practice. The constitutionality of California’s ban is now before a federal appeals court.

The passage of New York’s legislation was made possible by two Republican senators who had been undecided.

Sen. Stephen Saland pledged the deciding vote. He voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement.

“While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience,” Saland said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. “I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality.”

Gay couples in gallery wept during Saland’s speech.

While court challenges in New York are all but certain, the state — unlike California — makes it difficult for the voters to repeal laws at the ballot box. Changing the law would require a constitutional convention, a long, drawn-out process.

The sticking point over the past few days: Republican demands for stronger legal protections for religious groups that fear they will be hit with discrimination lawsuits if they refuse to allow their facilities to be used for gay weddings.

The climactic vote came after more than a week of stop-and-start negotiations, rumors, closed-door meetings and frustration on the part of advocates. Online discussions took on a nasty turn with insults and vulgarities peppering the screens of opponents and supporters alike and security was beefed up in the capitol to give senators easier passage to and from their conference room.

The night before, President Barack Obama encouraged lawmakers to support gay rights during a fundraiser with New York City’s gay community. The vote also is sure to charge up annual gay pride events this weekend, culminating with parades Sunday in New York City, San Francisco and other cities.

Despite New York City’s liberal Democratic politics and large and vocal gay community, previous efforts to legalize same-sex marriage failed over the past several years, in part because the rest of the state is more conservative than the city.

The bill’s success this time reflected the powerful support of Cuomo and perhaps a change in public attitudes. Opinion polls for the first time are showing majority support for same-sex marriage, and Congress recently repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that barred gays from serving openly in the military.

In the week leading up to the vote in New York, some Republicans who opposed the bill in 2009 came forward to say they were supporting it for reasons of conscience and a duty to ensure civil rights.

Pressure to vote for gay marriage also came from celebrities, athletes and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Republican-turned-independent who has long used his own fortune to help bankroll Republican campaigns and who personally lobbied some undecided lawmakers. Lady Gaga has been urging her 11 million Twitter followers to call New York senators in support of the bill.

While the support of the Assembly was never in doubt, it took days of furious deal-making to secure two Republican votes needed for passage in the closely divided Senate.

Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox rabbis and other conservative religious leaders fought the measure, and their Republican allies pressed hard for stronger legal protections for religious organizations.

Each side of the debate was funded by more than $1 million from national and state advocates who waged media blitzes and promised campaign cash for lawmakers who sided with them.

But Republican senators said it was Cuomo’s passionate appeals in the governor’s mansion on Monday night and in closed-door, individual meetings that were perhaps most persuasive.

The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.

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

**Catholics more likely to support gay marriage than other Christians, U.S. in general: study (National Post, 110328)

[KH: perhaps these Catholics are nominal Christians]

Despite official Church teaching that deems homosexuality “intrinsically disordered,” America’s Roman Catholics are more likely to support gay marriage than adherents of any other Christian denomination and more than Americans at large, a new U.S. study shows.

The study, conducted by the Washington-based Public Religion Research Institute Inc., found 43% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage, compared with 37% of the public and 36% of white mainline Protestants.

Seventy-four percent of Catholics are in favour of either same-sex marriage or civil unions for gays, compared with 64% of the general population and 67% of white mainline Protestants.

They were also the group more likely to support laws protecting gay Americans (73%), allowing gays to serve in the military openly (63%) and gay couples to adopt children (63%).

These results appear to contradict Catholic teaching on homosexuality as it is laid out in the Cathechism:

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law.”

Still, only 34% of Catholics thought sexual relations between adults of the same sex were sinful, compared with 60% of Protestants and 44% of the public.

The study does not look at gay marriage in the Church.

“This goes against the general perception and that makes for interesting reading,” said Daniel Cox, research director for the institute.

Catholics are also less likely to hear about this issue in homilies compared with other religious groups, he added.

Mr. Cox said the results are not as surprising as some might think. Earlier studies have shown a growing disconnect between what the Church teaches and the attitudes of those in the pews.

For example, a great many Catholics support the use of birth control, something the Church vehemently opposes. They also are in favour of the death penalty, which the American bishops and even the Pope are against.

The reason for the disconnect between American Catholics and their hierarchy has a lot to do with the fact Catholics are more likely to be born into their faith than Protestants, said Steve Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, at the Catholic University of America in Washington.

“It is easy to move from one Protestant denomination to another in the United States so there’s a self-selection process going on with Protestants that is largely missing with Catholics,” he said.

That means Protestants will choose a denomination they agree with, whereas Catholics tend to live with the religion of their birth — even if they disagree with its major tenets.

Catholics, too, generally live in areas of United States that are more liberal in their outlook in general, he added.

Mr. Schneck, who personally is opposed to legalized gay marriage, said there may even be a theological dimension to popular Catholic attitudes.

“Catholics distinguish between being and acting,” he said.

“There’s no moral issue in the way that one is born — it is in the acting out. So it may seem perfectly appropriate to grant someone who just happens to be born gay all the rights that everyone else has.”

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

**Iowa Judges Unseated; Christians Celebrate Marriage Win (Christian Post, 101103)

Conservative voters and family groups were able to secure a victory Tuesday with the removal of three State Supreme Court justices who legalized gay marriage.

Iowa Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit were up for a retention vote and needed more “yes” votes than “no” votes. More Iowans chose to unseat them from the judicial bench.

The decision was made after months of rallying and mobilizing by such groups as Iowa For Freedom, the Iowa Family Policy Center, and the National Organization for Marriage – all of whom were unhappy with the court’s vote in April 2009 to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. The 1998 act defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Celebrating the victory, NOM president Brian Brown stated, “First and foremost, we wanted to defeat the judges in Iowa who had usurped the will of the people and imposed gay marriage in that state. The three judges were overwhelmingly rejected, sending a powerful message to any judge who thinks they can impose gay marriage by judicial fiat against the wishes of the people.”

NOM was the largest donor to the effort to defeat the Iowa court justices, spending roughly $600,000 to the campaign. It joined other conservative groups on the “Judge Bus,” which made stops at 45 of Iowa’s 99 counties last week, urging voters to replace the “activist judges.”

“Support Iowa Families, Not Activist Judges,” they rallied.

Since the 7-0 ruling last April, family groups have argued that the Iowa Supreme Court had overstepped its judicial authority by striking down marriage laws.

“The court legislated from the bench … they governed from the bench … and, they even attempted to amend our constitution from the bench as they declared Iowa a ‘Same Sex’ marriage state,” said Iowa For Freedom. “This is not their role. The Legislature makes the law. The Governor executes the law. And, only ‘we the people’ can amend our constitution.”

“If the Iowa Supreme Court will do this to marriage, every one of our freedoms, including gun rights and private property, is in danger of being usurped by activist judges who are unelected officials.”

The groups have tried to push for a ballot initiative on the issue of marriage.

A poll released by the Des Moines Register last September showed that Iowans were almost evenly divided on same-sex marriage. 41% said they would vote for a ban on gay marriage while 40% said they would favor continuing gay marriage. At the same time, 35% of Iowans said they are strongly opposed to gay and lesbian couples marrying and only 18% said they are strongly in support of it.

The three ousted judges released a statement Wednesday, thanking supporters who worked “tirelessly” to “defend Iowa’s high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack funded by out-of-state special interest groups.

“Iowa’s merit selection system helps ensure that our judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges; it will require the fervent and steadfast support of the people.”

While the removal of the judges doesn’t impact the same-sex marriage decision made by the state high court, proponents of traditional marriage say Tuesday’s vote sends a clear message to judges across the country.

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

**Iowa joins the wedding march (World Magazine, 101103)

Ken Blackwell

Iowans yesterday joined voters in 31 other states who have affirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Never before had Iowa voters removed a justice from their state Supreme Court. But by strong margins, three judges who sought to legislate from the bench were ousted. Or outed.

Americans believe in the civil right of marriage. Americans—whenever they are given the chance—vote to support true marriage. They were not given the chance in Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, or Vermont—or, yet, in Washington, D.C.

Marriage wins in liberal states like Hawaii, California, and Oregon. Marriage wins in conservative states like Utah, Kansas, and Georgia. Marriage wins everywhere. When unelected judges conspire to invent new “rights,” marriage is in trouble.

Marriage is also in trouble with the Obama administration. President Obama has said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. That’s fine as far as it goes. But, as we have seen, it doesn’t go very far.

The president opposed Proposition 8 in California. It passed. The president is on record supporting the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Congress overwhelmingly passed that law in 1996. It won 362 votes in the House and 85 votes in the Senate. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed it into law. Few laws that have been passed in the last 20 years have had such strong bipartisan support.

Still, the Obama administration undermines DOMA on a daily basis. The president issues executive orders that give marriage benefits to same-sex couples, something DOMA was passed to prevent.

I call that process “termiting”: He doesn’t openly repeal the law, but his administration eats away at its foundations daily. They hope, no doubt, that some court somewhere will declare DOMA a dead letter.

Marriage is the civil rights issue of our time. Nothing else besides marriage so benefits the poor, women, children, minorities, and all those vulnerable people on the margins of society. Marriage brings stability to young peoples’ lives.

In defending marriage, we bash no one. But a lot of opponents of marriage are more than willing to bash us. They call us bigots. They tried to shout down the Judges Bus that went into Iowa to organize opposition to those unrepresentative Supremes.

In the end, the voters saw through it all. The “tolerance” lobby shows a marked intolerance for people who disagree with them.

Thank you, Iowans, for standing up for marriage. Thank you, too, for standing up for democracy.

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

**Poll: Protestant Support for Gay Marriage Rises (Christian Post, 101010)

A new poll on Wednesday revealed that support for same-sex marriage is growing among Americans.

Forty-two percent favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, up from 37% last year, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest survey.

Meanwhile, for the first time in 15 years, fewer than half oppose same-sex marriage. 48% of Americans are now against same-sex couples marrying, a dip from 54% the previous year.

Notably, pluralities of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics now favor allowing same-sex marriage – another first for the Pew Research Center.

According to the poll, white mainline Protestants are more likely to support gay marriage (49%) than oppose it (38%). In the past two years, 49% had expressed opposition. Among those who attend church at least once a week, 35% favor gays and lesbians marrying.

A similar shift is seen among Catholics. While opinion was more evenly divided over the past two years, today 49% favor gay marriage and 41% oppose.

White evangelical Protestants, meanwhile, remain overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage. 74% are against it and 20% favor it. A majority of black Protestants also continue to oppose gay marriage.

Evangelicals are also more likely than any other religious group to consider same-sex marriage as very important to their vote in the upcoming midterm elections.

Support overall for gays in the military is high, the poll also showed.

60% of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military while only 30% oppose it. Protestants are also more likely to support gays serving openly in the military (52%) than oppose it (37%). Evangelicals, meanwhile, are more likely to stand against it (47%) than favor it (43%).

Results for the 2010 surveys are based two polls conducted over the past few months. Interviews were conducted with more than 6,000 adults.

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

**Mass. Court’s Ruling Against DOMA ‘Erroneous’ (Christian Post, 100709)

A Massachusetts federal judge made an “erroneous decision” when he struck down the federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, said a conservative, pro-family group.

Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Thursday that the federal ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

But Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver, who is also dean of Liberty University School of Law, argues that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does not prohibit states from defining marriage. DOMA states that for federal purposes, marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore, federal benefits for spouses apply only to heterosexual marriages.

“Every court until now that has considered the federal Defense of Marriage Act has found it to be constitutional,” said Staver in a statement. “This activist decision must be appealed, and when appealed, I am confident it will be reversed.”

Liberty Counsel has defended the definition of marriage in more than 45 cases and has never lost a challenge involving the federal DOMA.

Tauro’s ruling allows for gay marriage partners in Massachusetts to receive the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples.

The Boston-based judge ruled that “as irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest,” DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause under the Fifth Amendment. He simultaneously ruled in a separate lawsuit that the DOMA definition of marriage violates the Tenth Amendment rights of states to be sovereign, and the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause. The cases were filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, respectively.

“While the American people have made it unmistakably clear that they want to preserve marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, liberals and activist judges are not content to let the people decide,” commented Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council. “We look forward to higher court review and reversal of this erroneous decision.”

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 with the support of an overwhelming majority in the House, 342 to 67, and in the Senate, 85 to 14. It was then signed by President Bill Clinton. The Obama administration, however, has called for the repeal of DOMA.

McClusky noted that Judge Tauro’s decision is partly a result of the “deliberately weak legal defense of DOMA” by the government under the Obama administration.

The Justice Department said it is reviewing Judge Tuaro’s decision and has not stated if it plans to appeal or not.

The DOMA ruling in Massachusetts could trigger similar cases in the other five states and the District of Columbia that also legally recognize gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for more than six years. Massachusetts was the first state in the nation to legally recognize such unions.

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

**Gay marriage bill defeated in New Jersey Senate (National Post, 100107)

TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey’s state Senate defeated a bill on Thursday that would have legalized same-sex marriage, a move that likely stalls the measure for several years.

The Senate, after an afternoon of debate, voted 20 to 14 against the bill. Backers had hoped to get it approved and signed into law before Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, a supporter, leaves office on Jan. 19.

Incoming Republican Governor Chris Christie, who defeated Mr. Corzine in November, had said he would veto the measure.

With failure of the bill in the Senate, the proposal now could lie dormant for years while Christie is in office.

Political observers have said Christie’s victory made some lawmakers wary of supporting the controversial measure.

New Jersey has a same-sex civil union law, designed to give gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. But advocates of gay marriage say civil unions are inadequate.

Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont have legalized same sex marriage. Another 40 states have specific laws banning it.

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

**U.K. Court Rules Against Christian Who Refused to Conduct Gay Ceremony (Christian Post, 091216)

[KH: see the coming persecution]

A London court of appeals ruled Tuesday against a Christian registrar who refused to conduct a same-sex civil union ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

Lillian Ladele claimed she suffered discrimination, including being ridiculed and bullied, while working for the Islington City Council. Ladele had worked for the council for nearly 16 years, but did not experience discrimination until after she refused to perform the gay civil union.

Ladele’s attorney said she never wanted to undermine the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender community. But human rights laws don’t only protect members of the LGBT community, but also people’s right to hold views about marriage.

Ladele said she was essentially forced to choose between her religious faith and her $50,000-a-year job.

“The decision of the Court of Appeal is another setback for Bible-believing Christians,” said Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of U.K.-based Christian Concern for our Nation, in a statement. “If this kind of legal precedent is followed it will prove increasingly difficult for Christians to participate fully in public life without contravening their conscience.”

Initially, the Employment Tribunal had ruled in favor of Ladele after the first court hearing in July 2008. The tribunal found that the council failed to respect its employee’s rights to her Christian beliefs. Moreover, the tribunal said the council could have other registrars who don’t hold the same beliefs to provide “first-class” service to same-sex couples without Ladele’s involvement.

The council “placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms. Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief,” the tribunal said.

But a December 2008 ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the initial decision, stating that the council had the right to require all its registrars to conduct all the services. On Tuesday, the court of appeals affirmed the appeal tribunal’s decision.

“Our public services are increasingly using equality and diversity policies to leave Christians sidelined and punished,” Williams said. “In effect this amounts to a religious bar to office.”

U.K. Christians have recently voiced alarm over the encroachment of their religious liberty in the name of equality.

In November, a court ruled against a Christian marriage counselor who refused to give sex therapy to a gay couple. Counselor Gary McFarlane said he believes the Bible teaches same-sex sexual practice is immoral and could not personally endorse homosexual relationships. He did not object to other counselors giving such couples advice.

However, his employer eventually fired him in early 2008 because of his religious views on homosexuality and his refusal to provide services to same-sex couples.

This week, the Christian Institute released a new report that asserts that Christians are being marginalized by equality and diversity laws “which leave them the first to be punished and the last to be protected.” The report noted the “growing sense of intolerance” felt by Christians in the United Kingdom.

“Christians wonder why they are not being treated equally and why diversity does not include them,” said Mike Judge, the head of communications at the Christian Institute. “This has led to a growing feeling that ‘equality and diversity’ is code for marginalizing Christian beliefs.”

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has accused U.K. lawmakers of treating Christians like “oddballs.”

The Anglican leader also accused the government of treating religious groups as “slightly fishy interest groups” and said he would be “very glad” if they spoke up for faith this Christmas.

Williams made the comments in a recent interview with The Telegraph.

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

**Reporter, Fired for Anti-Gay Marriage E-Mail, Claims Wrongful Termination (Foxnews, 091210)

Larry Grard was fired from the Morning Sentinel in Waterville, Maine, on Nov. 10, days after he sent an e-mail to the Human Rights Campaign.

A seasoned reporter who says he was the “conservative wolf” in his Maine newsroom claims he was wrongfully fired after he wrote a harshly critical personal e-mail to a group that supports gay marriage.

Larry Grard, 58, was fired from the Morning Sentinel in Waterville, Maine on Nov. 10, less than a week after he sent an e-mail to the Human Rights Campaign after Maine voters repealed a law that would have allowed gay couples to marry.

“This is an example of what can happen when you stand up for your beliefs,” Grard told FoxNews.com. “I was the lone conservative wolf in that newsroom for years and I never said a thing because nobody agreed with me. I suppose that’s what conservatives have to do today — just shut up.”

Offended that the Human Rights Campaign used the words “lies” and “hate” in a press release denouncing the voters’ rejection of Maine’s law recognizing same-sex marriage, Grard wrote:

“Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!”

Grard, who sent the e-mail while at work using a personal account, admits he had a lapse in judgment. He said he assumed the message would be anonymous, but he later learned that Trevor Thomas, deputy communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, had complained to the newspaper’s editor, Bill Thompson.

“He hauled me into the office about a week later and said, ‘Do you know you did something wrong?’” Grard said. “He said, ‘There’s no wiggle room here’.”

“Why is that, Mr. Thompson? ...

“They could’ve said write the guy a letter of apology and don’t do it again.”

Grard, a reporter and editor for 35 years, said he should have received a lesser penalty because he had been with the paper for 18 years.

The Portland Newspaper Guild has filed a grievance on Grard’s behalf and is awaiting a date for an arbitration hearing.

“There was no process, and that’s part of the grievance,” Grard said. “My union is vigorously fighting this. And unless mediation takes care of it, we’re going to go to federal arbitration.”

In a statement to FoxNews.com, Thomas acknowledged sending an e-mail to Thompson, but he said he never asked for Grard to be fired.

“I received the below email this morning after our national media release was sent to your team,” Thomas wrote to the newspaper. “It’s frankly, just not acceptable coming from a news organization the morning after our defeat.”

Thomas said the editor, Thompson, advised that management was looking into the matter and did not contact him further.

“It is my understanding they conducted their own review,” Thomas wrote to FoxNews.com. “I only learned Larry was fired from a reporter asking for comment.”

Thompson declined comment when reached by phone on Wednesday.

“I have nothing to say about this situation,” he said. “It’s a personnel matter.”

But Fred Brown, co-chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee, said Grard acted improperly as a reporter.

“He shouldn’t have done that,” Brown told FoxNews.com. “You don’t let that kind of stuff out. [A reporter] should never let people who you might be reporting on know where you stand.”

Had Grard been an editorial writer, the situation would be different, Brown said.

“He shouldn’t express any form of partiality,” he said. “He gives up part of that ability.”

Grard, who earned less than $40,000 a year at the paper, says he’s now left wondering how to pay for health costs related to his wife’s diabetes.

“We’re hurting, we’re without income,” he said. “We don’t make much money, and her blood sugar is through the roof. It’s really taking a horrible toll on her.”

And as if losing his job wasn’t enough, Grard’s wife, Lisa, a freelance writer, also lost her biweekly food column at the paper following his dismissal.

“Isn’t that amazing? What a coincidence,” Larry Grard said. “How small can you get?”

Grard said he’s “absolutely” certain his termination had a political undercurrent.

“There’s some people out there wielding a lot of power and a lot of money and you better watch out,” he said.

“Freedom of speech is an issue here, religious discrimination is an issue here … I don’t hate anybody. It’s contrary to my belief system to hate people, but I saw some hate coming the other way and I don’t like being called a hater.”

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

**New York State Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Bill (Foxnews, 091202)

New York lawmakers have rejected a bill to legalize gay marriage.

The Senate decision Wednesday comes after months of delays and arm twisting of lawmakers sympathetic to the bill but representing conservative districts. It follows a referendum in Maine earlier this month that struck down a gay marriage law before it took effect.

Advocates say they aren’t surprised by the decision. Most, including Gov. David Paterson, say they at least wanted a floor debate and vote.

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. A New Hampshire law takes effect Jan. 1.

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

**Gay Marriage Supporters Threaten to Strip Churches of Tax Exemption (Christian Post, 091113)

More than 75,000 Americans have joined an online movement seeking the revocation of tax-exempt status from churches that were involved in the repeal of Maine’s gay marriage law.

“It’s no secret that the Catholic Diocese led the ‘Yes on 1’ effort in Maine, among many other churches encouraging their congregations to vote ‘Yes,’ handing out signature forms and collection plates during service, and constantly asking for ‘sacrificial contributions’ from churchgoers,” Maine Marriage Equality charges.

“The IRS clearly forbids churches from participating in political campaigns in any form,” the group asserts.

Maine Marriage Equality is urging supporters and gay rights advocates to file an IRS complaint against churches that were a part of the effort in passing the ballot measure, Question One, which rejected the state’s same-sex marriage law.

The state law legalizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. John Baldacci in May.

The law was repealed last week when 53% of voters chose to repeal the law.

Maine Marriage Equality has made available a list of churches and organizations that campaigned for Question One as well as a list of major financial contributors.

“If churches are going to try and have a say in the way things work in this country, then they should have to pay their dues like the rest of us,” Mitchell David Plumer from Nashville, Tenn., wrote on the Facebook page supporting the revocation of tax-exempt status from churches engaging in political action.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, however, reject the claim that churches violated IRS policy.

“Pastors and churches have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “They can encourage their congregations to take a stand for marriage and can directly support legislative issues like Question 1 without running afoul of IRS rules.

“The complaints are designed to threaten the tax-exempt status of the churches, even though such support is almost always allowable by the IRS.”

Stanley encourages churches in Maine not to be intimidated by the complaints and says ADF will offer free legal support to churches that do get contacted by the IRS.

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

**Poll: Most Americans Don’t Want Gay Marriage in Their State (newsmax, 090502)

A recent poll released this week shows that the majority of American voters do not want their state to allow gay marriage.

Fifty-five percent of voters oppose a law in their state allowing same-sex couples to marry, according to an April 30 poll of more than 2,000 registered voters by Quinnipiac University.

Moreover, half of American voters support the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted under the Clinton administration, provides that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from another state.

Fewer Americans, however, support the second DOMA provision which defines marriage as between one man and one woman and bans the federal government from recognizing gay marriage for any purpose, including eligibility for federal benefits.

Fifty-four percent of voters say the federal law denying federal spousal benefits to gay and lesbian partners should be repealed.

Also, 57% support same-sex civil unions and 53% favor allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.

“Americans have nuanced and at times inconsistent views about gay rights issues,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, in the report.

“In general, Americans tend to be more supportive when it comes to narrow equity questions like serving in the military or collecting federal benefits,” he noted. (Fifty-six percent of voters say the ban on openly gay men and women in the military should be repealed.)

“But they are less accepting of more philosophical issues such as equating gay rights with civil rights for blacks and the belief that people are born gay rather than it being a choice,” said Brown.

According to the Quinnipiac poll, half of surveyed voters say ending discrimination against homosexuals is as necessary today as ending discrimination against blacks was in the 1960s. But less than half (45%) agree that not allowing same-sex couples to get married is discrimination.

Also, 42% of American voters say people are born gay or lesbian while 36% say it is a choice. And according to Brown, 65% of those who think people are born gay support legalized gay marriage compared to 15% among those who say being gay is a personal choice.

In other findings, 39% of American voters say same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Evangelicals (57%) and Protestants (47%) were the only religious groups more likely than the total surveyed Americans to say it is a threat. Catholics (34%) and Jews (8%) were less likely to agree.

When it comes to who should decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal, 43% of voters say their state legislature should decide and 25% say the courts should. Only 16% say neither should make the decision.

Vermont became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage last month through legislative action. Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa were legalized through the state courts. More recently, Maine’s and New Hampshire’s Senates passed gay marriage bills this week.

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

**Mainers Near Widely Watched Vote on Gay Marriage (Christian Post, 091102)

“While the issue of same-sex marriage stirs lots of passions on both sides of the debate, one thing that should be clear is that citizens should feel free to support groups that share and advance their views without fear of recrimination enabled by government,” said Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, in a statement Friday.

His statement comes as a complaint was filed against a high school guidance counselor and licensed social worker, requesting that his license to practice social work be stripped away.

The complaint was filed by a co-worker after Donald Mendell appeared in a television ad supporting traditional marriage in Maine.

“It is ironic that those who claim tolerance as their highest value prove themselves to be so intolerant that they would go so far as to threaten a father’s career and put his family’s future at risk,” said Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine. “This latest attack highlights the true agenda of those who demand that marriage be redefined.”

Alliance Defense attorney Austin R. Nimocks said the definition of marriage is not the only thing at issue in the upcoming vote. Free speech, freedom of conscience, and religious liberty are also in danger, he noted.

On Nov. 3, Maine voters will go to the ballot to decide on whether to repeal or uphold a law allowing same-sex marriage. The measure was passed by the state Legislature and signed by Gov. John Baldacci in May.

Before the law could go into effect in September, opponents submitted enough signatures for a “people’s veto,” subjecting the measure to repeal.

Following California’s recent marriage battle, in which the majority of voters supported traditional marriage, all eyes have shifted to Maine which could be the first state to affirm same-sex marriage with a popular vote.

Marriage for same-sex couples is legal in five other states but the measures were all passed by the respective state high courts or Legislatures, not by popular vote.

“We have people who want to make a legal commitment, take on responsibilities, who want to be a family,” said Mary Bonauto of Protect Maine Equality in a televised debate Wednesday. “Why would anyone in Maine want to stand in the way of those families and their happiness?”

Brian Souchet of Stand for Marriage Maine, meanwhile, argued, “No special interest group should be able to hijack the institution of marriage to suit their own needs. In my opinion, that’s exactly what we have going on here.”

Millions of dollars have been raised by both campaigns opposing and supporting the ballot measure, Question One. Polls have indicated that the battle is currently in dead heat.

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

**New Hampshire Legalizes Marriage for Same-Sex Couples (Christian Post, 090603)

New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

Gov. John Lynch signed the bill, approving revisions that better protect religious institutions and their employees against lawsuits if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measure was passed by the Senate and House earlier today.

New Hampshire, which is traditionally conservative, now joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and Maine in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

“Today, we’re standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect under New Hampshire law,” said Lynch, according to the Boston Globe.

Last month, Lynch said he would sign the same-sex marriage bill if the Legislature added clearer language stating that religious organizations and individuals working with such institutions cannot be forced to sanction same-sex weddings under the law.

Although legislative leaders were expected to quickly adopt the changes, the state House voted against the revisions.

Today, the House voted 198-176 to pass a newly revised bill, which specifies that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.

It also states that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees.

Lynch has expressed support for traditional marriage but said he decided to view the issue “through a broader lens,” as reported by The Associated Press.

Traditional marriage supporters have accused Lynch of using the proposal for revisions as a smokescreen to change his mind.

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

**Christian Clergy Rally on Opposite Sides of Gay Marriage Debate (Christian Post, 090603)

Less than a week after a group of clergy and Christians asked for a referendum to keep same-sex marriages from being recognized in the nation’s capital, another coalition of clergy has declared support for “marriage equality.”

“We declare that our faith calls us to affirm marriage equality for loving, same-sex couples,” said the Rev. Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist Church, at a gathering on Tuesday, according to The Washington Post. [KH: even a Baptist now, awful!]

Wiley is among more than 100 clergy from various faiths who launched a declaration, affirming same-sex marriage as “holy and good.”

“Our religious traditions and scriptures teach us that wherever love is present, God is also present,” the coalition, called D.C. Clergy United for Marriage and Equality, states. “We therefore affirm the right of loving same-gender couples to enter into such relationships on an equal basis with loving heterosexual couples.”

Last month, the Washington, D.C. Council voted 12-1 to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The legislation heads to Congress for approval and some council members are expected to introduce a bill to allow gays and lesbians to marry in the District.

In stark contrast to the interfaith group, conservative clergy have made public cries, committing themselves to fight any attempts to redefine marriage.

The Stand 4 Marriage D.C. clergy, who include Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., of Hope Christian Church, believe homosexual behavior is not in line with Scripture.

In a letter to Mayor Adrian Fenty and the city council last month, the conservative coalition reminded them that homes without a mother and a father are often broken and that traditional marriages and families are “happier, healthier, and more prosperous.”

They also argued that the same-sex marriage proponents’ claim that marriage is an issue of civil rights is “offensive to those of us who have been standing up for true civil rights all our lives.”

“Racial discrimination has always been not only wrong but irrational, because race is a characteristic which is inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution. None of those criteria apply to the choice to engage in homosexual relationships,” they stated.

The division among Christian clergy on the marriage issue is seen across the nation as more states debate same-sex marriage bills.

In southern California, where the state Supreme Court recently upheld a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Christian leaders on both sides of the debate have become increasingly vocal and active.

On Monday, religious leaders in San Diego held an interfaith service to voice their support for same-sex marriage while lamenting the high court’s ruling.

The day before, Christians from several San Diego megachurches and pro-family organizations celebrated the court’s ruling on Proposition 8 but were reminded that the battle wasn’t over.

Cautioning the crowd not to let their guard down, Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute told them to be ready for ongoing battles on marriage.

Gay and lesbian couples have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

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

Supplemental Articles in a separate file (click here to read)