Trditional Marriage News

Date:
Monday, August 5, 2013

BY BEN JOHNSON

Fri Aug 02, 2013 20:32 EST

HARRISONBURG, PA, August 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has followed the lead of Barack Obama and Jerry Brown by refusing to uphold the state's law protecting marriage between one man and one woman. At least one legislator thinks it is time she paid for violating her oath of office.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, has said Kane's actions merit impeachment, because they spread “lawlessness.”

“I think breaking the law is worthy of impeachment,” Metcalfe told local media. “Her duty is to defend the law.

Shortly after her announcement, Montgomery County Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, despite the fact that state law forbids such unions. As of Friday afternoon, Hanes had issued 62 marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and 13 of their recipients have completed wedding ceremonies.

“By her example, this Montgomery County official felt emboldened to violate the law also,” Metcalfe said.

He believes Hanes should be impeached, as well. By the laws of the state, Hanes is “charged with carrying out the law of Pennsylvania and this individual breaks the law.”

“Ultimately, I think there might be an impeachment procedure,” he said. “The legislature could remove this individual from office for violating the law.”

Governor Tom Corbett, a Republican, instead filed suit to stop the illegal issuing of marriage certificates on Tuesday. His general sounsel, James Schultz, wrote that Attorney General Kathleen Kane's refusal to defend the law "establishes a very troubling precedent" that "will create chaos and uncertainty.”

AG Kane's chief of staff, Adrian King, sent a letter Tuesday to Schultz calling Kane's defiance “a watershed moment” refusing to enact “discriminatory laws.”

Montgomery County Solicitor Ray McGarry, who is defending Hanes, said the registrar is merely following Kane's opinionnot to implement a statute that “she believed was unconstitutional.”

The decision to defend marriage delighted the Pennsylvania Pastors Network, which praised Corbett's action.

“I am encouraged by Governor Corbett’s decision to use his authority to stop the intentional breaking of law by a local elected official,” said Sam Rohrer PPN president. “When two elected officials (Kane and Hanes) or any other, think that they can act above the law, demonstrate political tyranny, and encourage lawlessness, it is critical that the citizens know that they will be held accountable to the law by others in elected office who share the responsibility to ensure that law is upheld by all in public office.”

Already, others have said they are willing to act in violation of settled law. State College, Pennsylvania, Mayor Elizabeth Goreham has said she will perform “marriage” ceremonies for homosexuals, if the couples already have a marriage license.

However, at the moment Hanes is the only clerk issuing the certificates. The annual conference of the Registers of Wills and Clerks of Orphans' Court Association of Pennsylvania adopted a resolution this month agreeing to abide by the law. 

 

Date:
Friday, August 2, 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman has attracted bipartisan support from a pro-life Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Congressman Nick Rahall, D-WV, has joined as a co-sponsor of Tim Huelskamp's motion to protect marriage.

 

Rahall, who has a 92 percent lifetime voting record from National Right to Life, is the only Democrat to support the legislation to date.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage said the West Virginia Congressman is the first “hopefully of many” Democratic representatives to support traditional marriage.

“Rep. Rahall's support proves once again that marriage is an issue that cuts past partisan politics and special interests, speaking universally to our shared common sense principles, such as every child's right to have both a mom and a dad,” Brown said.

Approximately one-third of Democrats do not believe in same-sex “marriage,” according to a recent Gallup poll. Nearly one-in-four believe redefining marriage would cause society to “change for the worse.”

That little impressed members of the homosexual lobby, who are a key constituency of the Democratic Party. “He apparently has a fondness for being on the wrong side of history,” a Human Rights Campaign spokesman said of Rahall.

The National Organization for Marriage is asking citizens to e-mail Congressman Rahall with messages of support – and to encourage their own representatives to sign on to the measure.

The “Marriage Protection Amendment” (H. J. Res. 51) now 49 co-sponsors. As yet, no co-sponsors are from Rep. Huelskamp's Kansas.

Among its co-sponsors are such pro-life stalwarts as Trent Franks, R-AZ; Louie Gohmert, R-TX; Duncan Hunter, R-CA; Steve Stockman, R-TX; and Tim Walberg, R-MI.

Congressman Tom Latham, R-IA, withdrew as a co-sponsor one day after signing on, with spokesman Chris Deaton attributing his temporary sponsorship of the bill as “a staff member's mistake.”

A similar amendment came up for a House vote in July 2006, when it failed 236-187. Some 34 Democrats, including Rahall, voted for the measure. Latham voted for the 2006 amendment.

To pass, a constitutional amendment must receive two-thirds support from both chambers of Congress and then has to be ratified by 38 states.

Currently, 37 states ban same-sex “marriage,” while 13 states have redefined marriage – four of them (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and California) by judicial decree. Only three states – Washington, Maine, and Maryland – enacted the redefinition of marriage by voter referendum. 

Date:
Thursday, July 25, 2013


By Georgetown/ On Faith, Published: July 23 at 5:31 pm


Anti-gay marriage protesters lost in Maryland in 2012. (Patrick Semansky/Associated Press)

QUOTE OF THE DAY |

 

“I do believe, and I still will tell you that our party believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. Our party believes that life begins at conception. I think those are foundational issues that aren’t going anywhere but what I have said, which I don’t think should be controversy at all and I would think that Christians and pastors and everyone in between should agree that our principles have to be draped in the concepts of grace, love and respect and that’s not code language. That’s the New Testament so I don’t think there should be any problem with that thinking in our party. If you’re looking at the evidence, what you will see is a party that embraces life, a party that embraces marriage and a chairman that understands that there’s only one sovereign God and that we ultimately aren’t dependent on what happens in politics. ”

-Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on continued support for the  party’s principles on same-sex marriage and abortion.

 

 Read more on religion, culture and politics at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs at Georgetown University

 

Date:
Wednesday, July 24, 2013

CHICAGO

On Tuesday, an official in Pennsylvania's Montgomery County made a decision that he said would put him "on the right side of history and the law." He decided that he would issue a same-sex marriage license to anyone who wanted it.

In Pennsylvania, same-sex marriage is illegal, but Register of Wills Bruce Hanes said in a press release that he made his "own analysis of the law." He also noted that the state's attorney general announced on July 11 that she would not defend that state's gay marriage ban against a legal challenge by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union. At least one same-sex couple has already been married in Montgomery County.

In the end, little may change in Pennsylvania. Gov. Tom Corbett (R) is likely to make sure the state's gay-marriage ban is defended in court, and Mr. Hanes's protest might not survive legal scrutiny. But the ferment in Pennsylvania is indicative of a brewing fight in gay marriage's "battleground states." With Delaware, Minnesota, and Rhode Island all legalizing same-sex marriage this year, advocates on both sides of the issue are preparing to spend millions of dollars in a handful of states that could follow their lead.

Hawaii, IllinoisNew Jersey, and Oregon are at the top of the list, legal experts say. But there is unlikely to be a stampede toward the acceptance of gay marriage, despite the Supreme Court's two landmark rulings this summer.

"It is unlikely that all states will adopt same-sex marriage in the foreseeable future," says Jack Tweedie, director of children and families program at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "The political solution is a state-by-state one, and it will be slow."

Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage, while 37 states ban or do not recognize same-sex marriage. No one expects to see any movement in the South or parts of the Great Plains or inland West. However, a switch may be more realistic in states that already have civil unions for same-sex couples, or have ballot initiatives for legalizing same-sex marriage moving forward

 

 
  • Before adjourning in May, the Hawaii Legislature failed to vote on several same-sex marriage bills and is expected to reconvene for a vote in January.
  • Gay-marriage proponents in New Jersey see an opportunity for overturning last year’s veto of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage by Gov. Chris Christie (R); the override would require 27 Senate and 54 House votes, where Democrats rule 24 to 16 and 48 to 32, respectively.
  • A gay marriage bill passed the Illinois Senate in February and had the backing of Gov. Pat Quinn (D), but was voted down in the House in May. In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and the gay rights group Lambda Legal filed a motion in Cook County Circuit Court earlier this month, arguing the state's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.
  • In Oregon, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is on the books, but a referendum to overturn it will take place in November 2014 if it can collect 116,000 signatures. If it is successful, it will come the first state to overturn such a ban.

Intensifying the debate is the fact that, in all four states, polling shows that the majority of residents support some form of same-sex marriage.

Freedom to Marry, a gay-rights group based in Washington, is spending more than $6 million to push same-sex marriage in all four states by 2014, and it plans to raise an additional $2 million by the end of the year. The organization then plans to turn its efforts to six more states by 2016. Possible contenders, the organization says, are Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

For its part, the American Civil Liberties Union hired Republican political strategist Steve Schmidt, who worked for President George W. Bush and was a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, to lead an effort to gain Republican support in these states. The organization says it will spend nearly $10 million on such efforts during the next four years.

Proponents of traditional marriage say efforts to turn back these bans will fail because voters have spoken.

Gay advocates are “hugely overplaying their hand. These are states where gay marriage advocates have been saying for months, if not years, that gay marriage is inevitable and they’ve made no progress,” Thomas Peters, a spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), based in Washington, told Reuters earlier this month.

 

In April, NOM said it would spend $250,000 to defeat any Republican legislator in Illinois or New York who voted to support same-sex marriage bills. 

 

Date:
Tuesday, July 23, 2013


By Juliet Eilperin, Published: July 23 at 11:37 amE-mail the writer


Hundreds of people gather outside the Supreme Court building in Washington on June 26, 2013 in anticipation of it gay marriage rulings. {Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty Images)

A federal judge on Monday recognized the out-of-state marriage of a gay Ohio couple, granting a temporary restraining order as one of the men nears death.

Ohio has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; James Obergefell and John Arthur have been together for two decades and got married earlier this month in Maryland because Arthur has Lou Gehrig’s disease, and is expected to die within weeks.

U.S. District judge Timothy Black issued a temporary restraining order Monday,  recognizing Obergefell as Arthur’s spouse, and suggested that failing to recognize the couple’s out-of-state union violated their rights to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

“This is not a complicated case,” Black wrote. “The issue is whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against same sex marriages lawfully solemnized out of state, when Ohio law has historically and unambiguously provided that the validity of a marriage is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated.”

While the ruling is temporary and limited to Obergefell and Arthur, the case could ultimately have broader implications. The court will hold a more extensive briefing on the issue in the future, noted Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal’s marriage project director, and any final ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is particularly tragic and compelling case and it shows to all of us in the country, not just those of us who are gay or those of us who are in the judiciary, but to all Americans, the degree of commitment shown by many gay couples and their desire to take care of each other in the worst time of life that any of us can imagine,” Taylor said.

The case not only sends a powerful message, Taylor said, but she said Black’s “reasoning is sound” and could form the basis for a broader challenge to state bans on same-sex marriage: “This decision foreshadows what will happen to marriage bans across the country.”

In practical terms, the ruling will allow Obergefell’s name to be added to the death certificate as Arthur’s surviving spouse, give him access to federal and state benefits, and allow him to be buried next to Arthur in his family cemetery where the plot is restricted to direct descendants and spouses.

“This is yet another example of an activist federal judge substituting his views for those of the people. The people of Ohio have determined through overwhelmingly enacting their state marriage amendment that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the federal government must respect that decision,” said Frank Schubert, national political director for the National Organization for Marriage.

 

Date:
Friday, July 19, 2013

The IRS's Gay-Marriage Tax Problem

 

During the runup to the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, one number kept recurring: The government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages meant gay couples were denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that straight couples enjoy. Now that the justices have struck down DOMA, gays can look forward to equality under U.S. tax laws. That is, just as soon as the Internal Revenue Service can figure out how to make equality happen. The tax agency has promised to “move swiftly” to recognize gay unions, but for many couples it won’t be as simple as checking the “married” box on their 1040.

Those living in Washington, D.C., or the 13 states that allow same-sex marriages can file a federal tax return next April just like other married couples. Not so for the thousands of gay couples who took their vows in one of those states but who live in one of the 37 others where same-sex marriage isn’t recognized. It’s not yet clear whose definition of marriage the IRS is supposed to follow in evaluating their taxes—the state where the couple got married, or the one in which they reside. And will the federal government recognize gay couples in civil unions who file a joint return?

To avoid confusion, a single nationwide rule makes the most sense, says Patricia Cain, a tax law professor at Santa Clara University in California. “The IRS has the power to construe the Internal Revenue Code,” she says. “So for them it’s, ‘What does the word spouse mean?’ ” President Obama has weighed in, saying it’s his “personal belief” that same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as married couples regardless of where they live. He’s asked federal agencies to research legal issues that might stand in the way. Such a ruling, though, could cause headaches for the IRS, which until now has typically followed states’ definitions of marriage, says David Herzig, a tax law professor at Valparaiso University. “You may solve this problem,” he says, “but you may open up another.”

Many gay couples might not like what marriage equality looks like on a tax form. Until now, they’ve been able to take advantage of their separate status to maximize tax savings—claiming multiple capital-loss deductions unavailable to opposite-sex married couples or multiple tax credits for adopting children. Straight married spouses with roughly equal incomes typically pay a marriage penalty under the tax code, because more of their income is subject to higher marginal tax rates. Gay couples would get hit with the same penalty. And unless the IRS exempts them from paying back taxes, some same-sex married couples could owe penalties for underwithholding during the time they’ve been married, even though the federal government didn’t recognize their unions until now.

On the other hand, gay couples with unequal incomes would get the same marriage bonus as straight couples and could seek a refund for the extra taxes they paid in recent years. Typically the IRS allows taxpayers three years to redo their tax returns. “One of the biggest issues is what to do retroactively,” says Elda Di Re, a partner at Ernst & Young in New York. “One would think that the IRS will allow there to be filing refunds—but not mandate filing to pay additional tax.”

Another potential mess: what to do about payroll taxes workers paid on employer-provided health insurance for their same-sex spouses, which isn’t taxable for married couples. The IRS could allow refunds, and then businesses would have to figure out how to distribute them to employees and ex-employees. Some companies pay married gay employees extra to cover their health-care tax burdens; they would have to decide whether to seek reimbursements from workers who get income tax refunds. And the IRS has to figure out whether or how to tax alimony payments from gay marriages that end in divorce, and money inherited from the retirement account of a same-sex spouse.

All these decisions will be made with a skeptical—and sometimes hostile—Congress ready to call foul. The IRS is already under scrutiny for its clumsy probes of political groups, and its efforts to formalize gay marriage in the tax code are likely to provoke congressional hearings and lawsuits. “No matter what they do,” says Herzig, “it’s such a volatile issue they’ll end up getting a challenge.”

 

The bottom line: The IRS, which usually follows states’ definitions of marriage, must find a way to give gay couples nationwide equal treatment.

 

Rubin is a reporter for Bloomberg News in Washington.

 

Date:
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
July 16, 2013 1:43 pm

Gay marriage supporters are launching a $2 million statewide campaign to approve same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Illinois Unites for Marriage is a coalition representing gay rights, civil rights and political groups.

In a statement Tuesday, the group says it will place 15 field organizers throughout the state to engage supporters. They plan to target legislators who oppose a measure to lift Illinois' ban on same-sex marriage.

The Illinois Senate passed the bill in February. It wasn't called for a vote in the House because the bill's sponsor said it didn't have the votes to pass.

Jim Bennett is chairman of the coalition. He says the next few months are critical because lawmakers could take up the bill in the fall.

Opponents say marriage should be between a man and woman.

 

Date:
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 15, 2013

 

The California Supreme Court refused Monday to order the state to immediately stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The court denied a request made by backers of Proposition 8, a voter-approved ban on gay marriages, for an emergency order that would have required the state to keep enforcing it while they pursue a legal effort to preserve it. The United States Supreme Court in June dismissed the backers’ appeal of a ruling that found the ban unconstitutional, saying the backers lacked authority to defend Proposition 8 after the governor and attorney general refused to do so. The State Supreme Court will still consider whether the lower court ruling against the ban applied only in Los Angeles and Alameda Counties, where two couples who sued to strike down the ban live.

 

 

 
Date:
Thursday, July 11, 2013
By 


Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Kathleen Kane, said on Thursday that she would not defend the state against a lawsuit to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage.

Ms. Kane, a Democrat, traveled from Harrisburg, where the suit was filed in Federal District Court on Tuesday, to make her announcement at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. She quoted from Pennsylvania’s Constitution forbidding discrimination “against any person” and said that “disparate treatment” based on race, religion and ethnic origin were no longer tolerated, and “it is now the time here in Pennsylvania to end another wave of discrimination.”

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union with 23 plaintiffs, including 10 gay and lesbian couples, two teenage children of one couple and a widow who lost her partner of 29 years, cites a ruling last month by the Supreme Court striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

It was the first of a wave of lawsuits that activists are planning to file to expand the number of states allowing same-sex marriage, including in Virginia and North Carolina.

Attorneys general in Illinois and California have previously declined to defend their states in similar cases. In Pennsylvania, the general counsel’s office of Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, was seen as likely to pick up the defense.

Ms. Kane, who was elected attorney general last year and has been mentioned as a possible future candidate for governor, struck a political note in her brief announcement to an audience that cheered and applauded her decision.

“I looked at it this way, the governor’s going to be O.K.,” she said. She wondered, she added, who would represent “the Daves and Robbies, who represents the Emilys and Amys?”

“As attorney general,” she said, “I choose you.”

 

Date:
Tuesday, July 9, 2013

By Lauren Enk | July 09, 2013 | 14:15
 

You’re a best-selling author. Your beloved sci-fi novel that’s been a fan favorite for decades is about to come to the silver screen. You can expect more fame, adulation, money, right? Wait just a second! You dared to speak out against gay marriage? Welcome to the new blacklist.

Orson Scott Card, author of the popular sci-fi fantasy “Ender’s Game,” which was just made into a film set to release this fall, is coming under fire from the left for his pro-traditional-marriage views. According to Huffington Post, an “online protest” broke out to blacklist the new movie based on Card’s book because of his conservative views and opposition to the gay agenda. As HuffPo reported, LGBT activists are taking aim at Card for his “controversial” “anti-gay stance.”

 

The LGBT group Geeks OUT is spearheading a boycott of the movie called “Skip Ender’s Game.” According to the official website the group wants to “send a clear and serious message to Card” because of his “anti-gay activism – whatever he’s selling, we’re not buying.”

“Do not buy a ticket at the theater,” urged the Geeks OUT group, “do not purchase the DVD, do not watch it on-demand. Ignore all merchandise and toys.” The site went on to insist that the “queer geek community” wants to keep its money away from Card because of his supposed “fear-mongering and religious bullying.”

(Apparently, expressing a conservative opinion counts as bullying, but of course bullying isn’t bullying when pro-gay activists do it to Christians.)

Card previously ruffled liberal feathers because of his uncompromising stance on gay marriage, and this is certainly not the first time he’s come under fire for it. But despite backlash, Card remained a steadfast supporter of traditional marriage. He joined the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in 2009 and frequently wrote articles opposing homosexual “marriage.” In response to the boycott, Card suggested that he’s interested to see whether “proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them.”

It would be a sight to see if liberals practiced the tolerance they’re preaching when it comes to Christians, but maybe they forgot what happened the last time they proposed blacklisting something because of pro-traditional-marriage views. Chances are, boycott or no boycott, sci-fi fans will still queue up at the theater to enjoy “Ender’s Game” this November.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lauren-enk/2013/07/09/author-card-joins-new-hollywood-blacklist-traditional-marriage-supporter#ixzz2YZzldBen

Pages