Monday, September 23, 2013
TRENTON — Under the din of a bustling election season, there’s a quiet movement afoot to make gay marriage a reality in New Jersey by the end of the year.
Advocates have been working to convince state lawmakers — including a number of Republicans — that they should cross Gov. Chris Christie and override his veto of a bill (S1) that would legalize same-sex marriage. The state currently allows civil unions, and Christie maintains same-sex marriage should be decided by a voter referendum.
The effort to override Christie is still an uphill battle: In the Assembly, advocates need 12 more lawmakers to vote for an override than those who voted for the original bill. Three more votes are needed in the Senate. And the clock is ticking, with the legislative session ending in January.
But with new pledges to vote for an override — and a lame-duck Legislative session approaching — there are signs the gap is shrinking.
State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a supporter of same-sex marriage, says he has been given commitments for enough votes in the Senate, and lawmakers and advocates are still pressing to find them in the Assembly.
In the lower house, Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) missed the vote on the bill last year. He has committed to voting for an override.
Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R-Bergen), also absent during the vote, said she would vote in favor of an override, indicating she had been swayed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
The court’s ruling will be key in convincing others, said Jeff Cook-McCormac, the senior adviser to the American Unity Fund, which is focused on convincing GOP lawmakers across the country to support same-sex marriage.
"It’s giving them a reason to re-think it," Cook-McCormac said of the court decision.
At least two more Democrats have indicated a willingness to back an override.
Assemblywoman Gabriela Mosquera (D-Camden), who was not a legislator last year, will vote for an override, said Carol Murphy, her spokeswoman. And Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-Hamilton) said he may support an override but continues to listen to constituents.. He said the response has been evenly split.
SEEKING GOP SUPPORT
Advocates say they are hoping Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini (R-Ocean), who did not vote on the bill, will support an override. She did not return a call for comment.
Cook-McCormac said it is possible to convince more Republicans to support gay marriage because "the question is a little clearer than it was" last year.
"I think the first thing is recognizing that the circumstances have changed considerably in New Jersey," he said, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision makes it clear that civil unions do not provide equal benefits to marriage and polls show gay marriage is supported by most New Jerseyans. "By getting them directly in touch with their representatives we are letting legislators know where their constituents stand," he said.
Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said his group is part of a coalition — including the National Organization for Marriage and the New Jersey Catholic Conference — that is lobbying legislators to vote against the override attempt.
"We’re working right now. The marriage coalition has been gathering and talking about opposition work to keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman," said Deo.
"I don’t think it’s going to be an easy push for (gay marriage supporters), but it’s going to be a battle for both sides," he said.
Meanwhile, a state Superior Court judge heard arguments last month over a lawsuit by six couples and Garden State Equality alleging civil unions fail to provide benefits equal to those afforded by marriage. The judge may rule soon, but the case is likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Lesniak said the Supreme Court could act before the Legislature has a chance to vote on an override, but that will have no impact on the effort to sway lawmakers. "We’re not going to give up on any avenue to get marriage equality done as soon as possible," he said.
Star-Ledger staff writer Matt Friedman contributed to this report.
Friday, September 20, 2013
BY BEN JOHNSON
Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:09 EST
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 19, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The gay activist who opened fire inside the Family Research Council (FRC) last August, injuring a security guard, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for terrorism.
Chief Judge Richard Roberts made the ruling inside the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia this morning.
Federal prosecutors had asked that Floyd Lee Corkins II serve 45 years in prison for his planned shooting rampage at the Family Research Council last summer. They said Corkins' actions clearly met the definition of terrorism, because he intended “to use acts of violence to terrorize and intimidate those within the District of Columbia and the United States who did not share his political beliefs and views.”
Defense attorneys said Corkins deserved only 11.5 years, saying that he had been mentally ill at the time of the shooting.
FRC employee Leo Johnson, who was shot in the left arm as he stopped Corkins' planned massacre,told his assailant, "I forgive you but I do not forget. If you believe in God you should pray to him everyday, because not only did God save my life that day, he saved yours, too."
It was not the first time they had exchanged words.
On August 15, Corkins entered the FRC building with nearly 100 rounds of ammunition, 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, and a list of four socially conservative “hate groups.”
In a videotaped confession, Corkins explained his had planned to "kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims' faces, and kill the guard." He hoped the shooting would "make a statement against the people who work in that building...and with their stance against gay rights."
He said he had also considered bombing the building but settled on entering and shooting the employees of the conservative groups one-by-one.
Standing across the desk inside the entrance, Corkins told Johnson, “I don't like your politics” before opening fire.
Security camera footage released in April shows Corkins missing with his first shot, then shooting Johnson in the arm as he wrestled the gun away.
“The trajectory of the round was such that, had Leo not ducked, it would have hit him in the head,” FRC President Tony Perkins told the Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C., last September. “The second round hit him in the arm, completely disabling his left arm.”
Once he had the gun, Johnson faced a moment of temptation.
“The thought approached me for a moment whether or not I shoot him, not knowing what he might do, but in that moment the Lord spoke to me saying don’t shoot him,” Johnson told Perkins.
In the filing, prosecutors said without Johnson's heroism, Corkins "would have almost certainly succeeded in committing a massacre of epic portions."
Instead, Johnson kept Corkins corralled as he waited for police to arrive.
Corkins, then 28, had been volunteering at The DC Center for the LGBT Community. He explained to investigators that he used the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) list of allegedly anti-gay "hate groups" to choose his victims.
“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups," Corkins admitted during his videotaped interrogation. "I found them online, did a little research, went to the website – stuff like that.”
On February 6, Corkins reversed his not guilty plea and confessed to three charges: one count of committing an act of terrorism with the intent to kill, one count of intent to kill while armed, and one federal count of crossing state lines with guns and ammunition. Seven additional charges were dropped.
The names of all four groups Corkins intended to terrorize have not yet been released. However, Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition learned her organization's name and address was found written in Corkins' pocket.
She told LifeSiteNews.com the Obama administration made no effort to defend TVC against copycat shooters.
“If someone had mailed bacon to a mosque, all heck would have broken loose, and they would have sent in attorneys from the Justice Department...But they ignore the concerns of Christians,” Lafferty told LifeSiteNews.com
“I think Christians need to wake up,” Lafferty said. “We have a government that does not believe they need to protect us.”
Thursday, September 19, 2013
By Russell Berman - 09/19/13 06:00 AM ET
A group of Republicans in the House is set to unveil a proposal aimed at protecting conservative groups in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.
Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) plans to introduce the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act Thursday. He said the bill “ensures that any religious institution, organization or church that believes that marriage should continue to remain between one man and one woman will not be discriminated against by the federal government.”
The Supreme Court in June ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, paving the way for the federal government to grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples with licenses from states that have legalized same-sex marriage.
Citing examples in the states, Labrador said he and other conservatives are worried that organizations like the Boy Scouts or Catholic Charities could lose their tax-exempt status because of their official positions on the question of marriage.
“My bill does not deal with those state issues,” Labrador said in an interview, “but we have already seen the increased attack and discrimination of institutions at the state level, and we just want to ensure that it does not happen at the federal level.
“I believe the Constitution protects these institutions,” he said, “but I just want to make sure that it’s in the law, that it’s 100 percent sure, that people have no question about it.”
The bill has 60 co-sponsors, including the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), and two socially conservative Democrats: Reps. Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Daniel Lipinski (Ill.).
Labrador emphasized that the bill was not an attempt to overturn the Supreme Court decision and that it should appeal to a wide range of members concerned about government intrusion, particularly following the IRS scandal.
“My bill is very narrowly drafted, so this is something that conservatives, independents, moderates, Republicans, Democrats can support — just so we can protect these religious institutions from any discrimination by the federal government,” Labrador said.
The Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, said the proposal was unnecessary.
“The federal government isn’t discriminating against religious groups or people of faith as it implements the Supreme Court’s decision striking down DOMA. And there’s no reason to believe that it ever will,” spokesman Fred Sainz said.
“This legislation’s real purpose is to let federal employees, contractors and grantees refuse to do their jobs or fulfill the terms of their taxpayer-funded contracts because they have a particular religious view about certain lawfully married couples — and then to sue the federal government for damages if they don’t get their way.”
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/323147-gop-plans-one-man-one-woman-law-to-thwart-courts-same-sex-marriage-ruling#ixzz2fN4Ua4Y5
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
ROME, September 13, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Replacing terms like mother and father with “Parent 1 and Parent 2” is not an innocuous defense of “equality” but the beginning of a complete re-write of Italian society, a prominent Italian cardinal said this week.
Changing the categories of family life and genealogy could send “a real earthquake” through the social structure.
The expression, that has already been proposed for all official documents related to public housing and kindergarten placements in the city of Venice, will make “the category of fatherhood and motherhood disappear, to be replaced by the generic category of ‘parenting,’” the Cardinal Archbishop of Bologna, Carlo Caffarra, said.
Speaking in a keynote address at a conference at the Teatro Manzoni in Bologna this week, Cardinal Caffarra identified the largest question facing Italian society: “Is marriage a reality at the disposal of the men, or does it have a ‘hard core’ that is not open to human preference?”
“Is the definition of marriage…exclusively dependent on social consensus?” he further asked. “Is it the social consensus which decides what marriage is?”
Cardinal Caffarra said that the main focus for the work of Catholic teachers should be understanding the primacy of marriage between man and woman, which has as its foundation the “intrinsic ability to give rise to a new the human person.”
He called fatherhood or motherhood “highest capacity and responsibility that men and women have,” because it is “one of the points where the creative action of God enters our created universe.”
In the modern world – busy with the reconstruction of marriage to include same-sex partners – the term “love” has been drained of its true meaning, he added.
“Have you noticed that I have carefully steered away from using the word ‘amore’?” Caffarra said. “Why? Because it’s been stolen.”
“Indeed, ‘love,’ one of the key words for the Christian, has been taken from modern culture and made into an empty term, a kind of container where everyone puts what he feels. For this reason, the ‘truth in love’ today finds little support.”
He quoted Pope Benedict XVI in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, saying, “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled arbitrarily. It’s fatal to risk love in a culture without truth.”
He warned the teachers in the audience, “The witnesses of the truth of conjugal life will be difficult, as not infrequently happens to the witnesses of the truth. But this is the most urgent task of the educator.”
Yesterday the President of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, echoed the same topics in his opening address to the 47th annual Social Weeks conference in Turin. To “weaken the family,” Bagnasco said, or “worse destabilize the meaning of the person, is to destabilize society.”
Although he did not directly mention the Parent 1 and Parent 2 controversy, Bagnasco added that “the person receives life through fruitful love of Dad and Mom.”
“You’re starting to deconstruct the sexual dimension to match the social,” he said. And by insisting on this ontological “liquidity” of the human person, we “run the risk of being pulverized in an indistinct egalitarianism that erases the rock of sexual and generational differences, thus eliminating the possibility of being father and mother, son and daughter.”
Thursday, September 12, 2013
By Sara Ganim, CNN
updated 1:15 PM EDT, Thu September 12, 2013
(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania judge on Thursday ordered a suburban Philadelphia county clerk to comply with the state's same-sex marriage ban and stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
Since July, D. Bruce Hanes, the elected Montgomery County register of wills, has given out 174 licenses to same-sex couples, ignoring a 1996 state law that defines marriage as "between one man and one woman."
The state Department of Health sued to stop Hanes, saying he is in "direct defiance" of the ban and "risks causing serious and limitless harm to the public."
In his order Thursday, the judge said Hanes must "cease and desist from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex applicants, from accepting the marriage certificates of same-sex couples, and from waiving the mandatory three-day waiting period." He also denied dozens of requests from same-sex couples in the state to intervene in the lawsuit.
Hanes told CNN in August that he and his solicitor reviewed the state constitution and decided that language about civil rights, happiness and liberty applied to same-sex couples who want to get married.
"We've either got to change the constitution -- permit discrimination on the basis of sex, permit civil rights to be frustrated -- or change the interpretation of that marriage act or change the marriage act. You can't have it both ways," he said in August.
Hanes started issuing the licenses shortly after the U.S. v. Windsor case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Pennsylvania is considered a conservative state on the issue of same-sex marriage, and it is simultaneously fighting a court battle with the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the state in July after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Windsor case.
The state attorney general, Kathleen Kane, said this year that Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage is "wholly unconstitutional" and that she won't defend the state in the ACLU suit.
Monday, September 9, 2013
By Zelie Pollon
SANTA FE, New Mexico | Sat Sep 7, 2013 2:08am EDT
(Reuters) - The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide once and for all whether same-sex matrimony should be legal statewide after several counties began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, prompting a legal challenge.
Stepping into an intensifying debate over gay marriage in a state where same-sex unions are neither expressly recognized nor prohibited by law, the New Mexico court set a hearing for October 23 to consider a request from all 33 counties statewide to settle the matter.
All five of the state Supreme Court justices concurred in ordering a review of the case without comment.
The justices had previously declined to intervene on the issue, saying they would leave it to the lower courts to rule on lawsuits being filed in different counties.
At least two court decisions since August have tipped the scales in favor of same-sex unions in New Mexico, which gay rights advocates hope will join 13 other U.S. states and the District of Columbia in recognizing gay marriages outright.
In August, a district judge in Santa Fe, the state capital, ruled that New Mexico's constitution did not bar same-sex matrimony and ordered the county clerk there to either issue marriage licenses to gay couples or appear in court to explain why she could not.
Days later, a district judge in Bernalillo County, which includes Albuquerque, ruled that denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection under the law and barring gender-based discrimination. His ruling also applied to Santa Fe.
The 33 county clerks, joined by the New Mexico Association of Counties, subsequently petitioned the high court to weigh in on the Santa Fe and Bernalillo case and decide whether the judge's ruling should extend statewide.
Separately, a number of Republican state lawmakers filed a lawsuit challenging a Dona Ana County clerk who began voluntarily handing out marriage licenses to gay couples last month.
As of Friday, a total of eight New Mexico counties have begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, some on their own and some under court order, according to Chris Stoll, senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
At least 1,000 gay and lesbian couples have applied for marriage licenses across New Mexico in recent weeks, said Micah McCoy, a spokesman for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which, together with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, represents the plaintiffs in the case in Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties.
He said 250 applications from gay couples had been made in Dona Ana County alone.
Both sides in the debate welcomed the intervention of the state Supreme Court.
"I think it's excellent," said state Representative Anna Crook, a Republican from the town of Clovis who is one of 29 state lawmakers who have joined the lawsuit in Dona Ana County. "It's been absolute chaos. We need to have a ruling one way or the other instead of, 'My county can, yours can't.'"
Stoll, of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said: "We have couples that have received marriage licenses and have gotten married, and they deserve the certainty of knowing their marriage is secure and will be respected by the state."
Even if gay marriage supporters prevail, Republican lawmakers could eventually be joined by conservative Democrats in putting a measure on the ballot to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. Democrats hold a majority in both houses of the New Mexico legislature.
(Reporting by Zelie Pollon; Writing and additional reporting by Steve Gorman; Editing by Peter Cooney and Robin Pomeroy)
Friday, September 6, 2013
SANTA FE, N.M. September 5, 2013 (AP)
By BARRY MASSEY Associated Press
New Mexico's 33 counties asked the state's highest court Thursday to decide whether gay marriage is legal in the state and to stop the spread of lawsuits that have forced some county officials to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The New Mexico Association of Counties and clerks statewide filed a petition seeking clarity in a legal dispute that has changed rapidly in the past two weeks since a southern New Mexico clerk independently began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Since then, seven other counties followed — some because of court orders in response to lawsuits by same-sex couples.
More than 900 marriage licenses have been granted to gay and lesbian couples in the state, according to the lawsuit.
It remains uncertain whether the Supreme Court will accept the case.
"The bottom line is we're looking for a uniform answer," said Steve Kopelman, general counsel for the county group. "There's a controversy here. This is not a simple issue legally. But we're not weighing in on the moral issue. We're weighing in on the law."
New Mexico law doesn't explicitly prohibit or authorize gay marriage. However, the marriage laws — unchanged since 1961 — contain a marriage license application with sections for male and female applications. There also are references to "husband" and "wife."
The current and previous state attorneys general have said the law effectively prohibits gay marriage, although current Attorney General Gary King also has said he believes such a prohibition is unconstitutional.
A state district court judge in Albuquerque last week ruled it is a violation of New Mexico's constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The judge based his decision on a 1972 constitutional amendment adopted by voters that prohibits discrimination "on account of the sex of any person."
Two county clerks that were defendants in that case decided not to directly appeal the judge's ruling. However, the county association and the state's 31 other county clerks — including several already issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples — joined the lawsuit to provide a way to quickly move the gay marriage question to the Supreme Court.
The five justices previously turned down efforts by gay rights advocates to get a ruling on the marriage issue. The advocates had attempted to get a decision by filing lawsuits directly with the Supreme Court rather than through an appeal of a lower court decision.
The counties procedurally are asking for a special order from the Supreme Court rather than filing a traditional appeal that would take longer to resolve, said Daniel Ivey-Soto, a lawyer for county clerks and a Democratic state senator.
Their petition says the clerks who are not issuing marriage licenses need "clarity of the law" to proceed with their obligations and "object to assumed constitutional interpretations for which there is no precedent."
The counties also asked the justices to temporarily halt pending district court lawsuits on gay marriage until they make a statewide decision on the issue.
Sen. William Sharer, a Farmington Republican, said he and other lawmakers plan to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court urging it to stop same-sex marriages.
"The people that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman for the very first time are going to have a voice in court," he said. Sharer also is among a group of Republicans who filed a lawsuit in Dona Ana County to try to block the clerk there from continuing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.
Sweet Cakes By Melissa posted a message on its Facebook page alerting customers that their Gresham, Ore. retail store would be shut down after months of harassment from pro-gay marriage forces.
“Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery’s Facebook page.
“The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”
- Aaron Klein, owner, Sweet Cakes By Melissa
“It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”
Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein made national headlines when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals -- but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.
Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.
The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.
“That tipped the scales,” Klein said. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”
To make matters worse, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced last month they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Christian family.
Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbians.
“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”
In other words, Christians who live and work in Oregon must follow man’s law instead of God’s law. But in a show of benevolence, the state is willing to rehabilitate and reeducate Christian business owners like the Kleins.
Klein said the closing of their retail store was a small price to pay for standing up for their religious beliefs.
“As a man of faith, I am in good spirits,” he said. “I’m happy to be serving the Lord and standing up for what’s right.”
Klein said what’s happened to Sweet Cakes By Melissa should be a warning to other Christians across the nation.
“This is a fight that’s been coming for a while,” he said. “Be prepared to take a stand. Hopefully, the church will wake up and understand that we are under attack right now.”
Just last month, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
Denver baker Jack Phillips is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint against Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. A hearing before the state’s civil rights commission is set for later this month.
In Indianapolis, a family-owned cookie shop faced a discrimination investigation after they refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day.
A T-shirt company in Lexington, Ky. found itself at the center of a Human Rights Commission investigation after they refused to make T-shirts for a local gay rights organization.
Klein said it’s becoming clear that Christians do not have the “right to believe what we believe.”
In other words, gay rights trump religious rights.
Aaron and Melissa Klein tell me they will continue to bake wedding cakes from their home. He’s already taken a full-time job to pay the bills and feed their five children.
Mrs. Klein told television station KPTV her philosophy remains unchanged by recent events.
“The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” she said. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps. I guess in my mind I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.”
The plight of the Klein family exposes the true nature of the left. Those who preach tolerance and diversity are the least tolerant and the least diverse of all.
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary heard on hundreds of radio stations and in his weekly podcast. Sign up for his American Dispatch newsletter and be sure to join his Facebook page.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/#ixzz2e2e15CmL
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Associated PressMon Sep 2, 2013 11:57 AM
An initiative campaign to have Arizona voters decide next year whether to legalize gay marriage is faltering amid reluctance by national and local advocacy groups to back the measure.
Volunteers continue to collect signatures but paid signature gatherers have been pulled from the street and a scheduled volunteer training event wasn’t held.
“We’re in a period of kind of continued dormancy. The dormancy has gone on for a few weeks as we have been in negotiation with the local LGBT groups,” campaign co-chair Erin Ogletree Simpson said.
“We need the backing and support of all of the organizations that have been working on these matters to go forward . We need their support,” Simpson said.
However, advocacy groups say the timing isn’t right because the measure would go on the ballot when turnout for a midterm election would be comparatively low compared with a presidential election year, the Arizona Capitol Times reported.
Sheila Kloefkorn, an Arizonan who serves as a national board member of the Human Rights Campaign, said that group won’t support the initiative.
There is increased support in Arizona for gay marriage but not enough to win in 2014, Kloefkorn said. “We will not (support the campaign) and I don’t know of any organization that would at this point.”
Supporters of the initiative measure would need to submit petitions with 259,213 voter signatures by July 3 to qualify it for the 2014 ballot.
The proposed ballot measure, titled the “Equal Marriage Arizona Initiative,” would define marriage as a union of two people, as opposed to the current requirement of one man and one woman.
Approval of the initiative would overturn a ban approved by voters in 2008 as an amendment to the Arizona Constitution.
Two years earlier, Arizona voters narrowly rejected a broader proposal that also would have prohibited the state and its local governments from creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that was similar to that of marriage.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
August 28, 2013|12:18 pm
Pastors and church members gathered at New Hope Church Honolulu, Hawaii on Monday to protest the Freedom to Marry Act, which may pass in a special session this Fall, to make Hawaii the 14th state to legalize gay marriage.
"Same-sex marriage is against the will of God," argued Dennis Sallis, pastor of Hope Church Waliki. "We're just preaching the word of God."
A week before, however, over 30 representatives of faith-based groups signed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage, following a service at the Nuuanu church where President Obama went to Sunday school in his childhood years. "They did not choose to be gay – this is how God made them," said Methodist Minister Barbara "Babs" Grace Ripple, 71. "Who am I to say that they should not have the same benefits in life that I have?"
Ripple's fiancé, another Methodist minister, Samuel Cox, was among the first to perform civil unions in Hawaii. He recalled the suicide of a young gay man, whose death reportedly changed Cox's life. "Ever since, I have been a strong advocate for civil rights and marriage equality for our LGBT friends," he said.
Hawaii began struggling with the issue of same-sex marriage in the early '90s, when three same-sex couples sued for marriage licenses in the 1991 case Baehr v. Miike. Following a Hawaii constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to outlaw gay marriage, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled against the couples in 1999. In February 2011, however, the current governor, Niel Abercrombie, signed a new law allowing civil unions, which came into effect on January 1, 2012.
A QMark Research poll reignited the issue early this month. It found that 54 percent of Hawaiians support same-sex marriage, while only 31% oppose it. In January, an Anzalone Liszt Grove Research poll found opposition 6 percent higher at 37 percent.
"Over just the last six months, opposition has dropped by 6 percent which means people are really starting to understand what the issue is about…welcoming others and treating them with respect," explained State Representative Chris Lee. He also argued that legalizing gay marriage would bring money into Hawaii's economy, as more people pay for weddings and receptions in the state.
Roman Catholic Bishop Larry Silva, however, claimed that gay marriage would do more harm than good, and urged Hawaii Catholics to call their representatives to oppose the legislation.
"People with same-sex attraction are a part of our community, even our Catholic community, and they deserve dignity and respect," he explained. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church only allows marriage between one man and one woman.
The bishop argued that if same-sex marriage is made legal, polygamy, incest, and pedophilia would follow, various faiths would suffer legal persecution, and children would receive substandard care. For these reasons, discrimination against same-sex couples is just, as it between adults and minors, parents and children, professors and students. All people have equal dignity, but in society different people have different roles, and are treated accordingly, he contends.
"If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, its implications will go far beyond the relationship of this or that couple," Silva warned. Besides gay marriage, other sexual preferences will also become "normal" in Hawaii. School textbooks will be bound by law to portray various options, and this will confuse the "normal sexual maturation" of boys and girls, as their sexual identity is "formed over time."
Silva wondered if, once same-sex marriage is normalized, discrimination against those who want to marry their mother or father, brother or sister, or a minor, must also be struck down.
"Would people who firmly believe that God made us male and female, and that God has revealed that homosexual acts are sinful be allowed to hold such beliefs?" the bishop asked. He warned that Christians, Muslims, and others who share these beliefs would be persecuted, and religious freedom would become "only a paper freedom."
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/hawaii-churches-divided-on-gay-marriage-as-state-could-be-14th-to-recognize-such-unions-103163/#HtfFvKEvGUIXqhWZ.99