Trditional Marriage News

Date:
Thursday, February 28, 2013

 

By Joe Kimball | 02/27/13

While supporters rallied at the state Capitol Wednesday and prepared to introduce a bill legalizing gay marriage, opponents are making their own plans to fight the legislation.

That includes a Minnesota March for Marriage rally and lobby day at the Capitol March 7. It runs from 2 to 5 p.m., with the rally on the Capitol steps from 2:30 to 3 p.m.

It's sponsored by Minnesota for Marriage — a coalition that supports the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and supported last year's failed effort to put the current ban on gay marriage into the state Constitution.

The group says it wants the current state laws regarding marriage to stay on the books.

Scheduled speakers at the rally include Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, and Teresa Collett, a professor of law at the University of St. Thomas.

 

The group is urging its supporters to meet with their legislators that day, said Crystal Crocker, director of grassroots and messaging for Minnesota for Marriage. She's quoted in the Catholic Spirit newspaper:

“We’re gathering together and energizing ourselves for this effort, but the most important point of the day is to go in and actually meet with your legislators,” she said. “They work for us and they should be meeting with us.”

Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, part of the Minnesota for Marriage coalition, said supporters of traditional marriage need to spread the word. He told the paper:

"We’ve got to get the people of Minnesota to say, "Keep marriage the way it is,' " he said. "Our message is: Don’t mess with marriage."

Date:
Monday, February 11, 2013

 

 

BY PETER SMITH

  • February 11, 2013 (Mercatornet.com) - David Cameron’s same-sex marriage bill was voted on for the first time in the British Parliament on Tuesday. Confusingly, the debate and vote were called the “second” reading, as the first “reading” took place when the draft bill was laid before Parliament, giving members and everyone else their first opportunity to read the proposed legislation.

At 50-odd pages long, the bill amends dozens of acts of Parliament stretching back to 1533. One would have thought that, for such a complex document with profound legislative consequences and social effects, not least for the established Church of England, parliamentarians would have had plenty of time to comment on the proposals, but no: it only came out on January 25. The usual process of green paper and white paper consultations were short-circuited by a Government bent on pushing through the creation of same-sex marriage.

Why the rush?

Probably for a quick win. Cameron is guaranteed to get it through the House of Commons because most MPs are socially liberal city-dwellers who take what they see to be a Whiggish interpretation of history (the House of Lords will be a different matter). It is likely too that Cameron sees same-sex marriage as being a way of “detoxifying” or “decontaminating” the Tory brand, whereby he stares down the traditionalist Taliban of backbench social conservatives and what Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a Liberal Democrat, thinks of as petty-minded religious bigots in the Shires, in an effort to show that the Conservative Party has “really changed” to become a trendy group of chilled-out mates who are down with the Tweeting Facebook masses.

Matthew d’Ancona, an “arch-moderniser” pro-Cameron journalist, chided Tory opponents of gay marriage for failing to grasp the historic moment, and for pulling the party away from “openness, equality… and ‘the centre of gravity of social attitudes’.” And finally, Cameron – to his credit – believes in the justice of his actions, and is acting in accordance with his conscience.

I won’t quote from MPs’ speeches here, but suffice to say, the supporters of gay marriage cited equality and love whilst its opponents pointed out the meaning of marriage rooted in complementarity of the sexes and the creation and raising of children.

The Catholic Voices website has a good selection of the views of some traditional marriage supporters from across the political parties. A friend summarised the positions thus on Twitter: the pros had an adult- and wedding-centric view of marriage; the antis, a child- and family-oriented view.

Two interesting aspects of the vote stand out. First, 400 MPs voted for the measure and 175 against it. Of the opponents, 136 were Tories. In contrast, only 127 Conservatives voted for same-sex marriage. This marks a substantial split in the Conservative Party. It isn’t just about the nature of marriage, but also about the direction in which David Cameron and his faction are taking the Party. Newspapers in the weekend before the vote were full of talk of a coup against Cameron, as the economy remains in the doldrums. Cameron did not have a clear mandate for his actions either. A black MP, Adam Afriyie, the representative for well-heeled Windsor electorate, was named as a potential contender. The scuttlebutt has gone as fast as it came, but it didn’t hurt his chances for Afriyie to oppose gay marriage prominently.

With the problems over legal protections for teachers and clergy still in the air, some expect a bigger revolt at the third reading. What I will be interested to see is, by that stage, whether the voting habits of Catholic MPs from across the parties have changed. The liberal British Catholic publication, The Tablet,analysed their votes: out of the 82 Catholic MPs, 47 – almost 60 per cent – were in favour of same-sex marriage. Of these, 32 were Labour members, which indicates that they likely chose the party line over faith to some degree (Labour MPs would have delighted in Cameron’s motion being defeated by his own party). Tory Ministers Iain Duncan-Smith and Patrick McLoughlin, the Work and Pensions Secretary and Transport Secretary respectively, voted with the Government; the best they could have hoped to do was abstain, given the three-line whip imposed by the Conservative whips.

What makes this surprising is that the Catholic Church usually influences the votes of its confessional parliamentarians quite well. As the Church was the principal opponent to same-sex marriage, this should have been especially true in this case. By the third reading, expect some quite pointed words to be spoken softly into the ears of supporters of the Government plan.

Now the bill goes to a committee of MPs who will go through it, line by line, for a number of weeks. It then comes back to Parliament for its third reading in the Commons for a final set-piece battle. Then the process moves to the House of Lords. As they say in Hollywood, stay tuned, folks.

Peter Smith is a lawyer living and working in London.

Date:
Tuesday, January 22, 2013

 

'Sister Wives' lawsuit back in Utah courtroom

By By PAUL FOY, Associated Press – 4 days ago  

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A federal judge holding a hearing on a lawsuit by the stars of the reality show "Sister Wives" heard arguments Thursday on whether Utah can prohibit plural marriage, but issued no immediate ruling.

Kody Brown and his four wives claim the law is unconstitutional. The family fled Utah for Las Vegas last year under the threat of prosecution. They did not attend the hearing in Salt Lake City, leaving arguments to a constitutional law professor.

"The Browns wanted to show people that a plural family is not a monstrosity," said Jonathan Turley of The George Washington University. "They don't commit collateral problems."

Turley said the Browns' only sin was opening their family to the TLC hit series, which drew the attention of Utah authorities.

"The state is saying if you didn't do this TV show, you wouldn't have a problem," he said. "They have a right to free speech and are being prosecuted for it."

The hearing dealt with the legalities of due process and freedom of association.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups peppered a state lawyer on why he shouldn't throw out Utah's bigamy law. It's stricter than the laws in 49 other states — most of them prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses. Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.

What if Kody Brown kept separate households for each wife, or was just having affairs, the judge asked.

"That would not be polygamy," said Assistant Utah Attorney General Jerrold Jensen.

Yet Jensen argued Utah's unique history of polygamy for more than 100 years has made victims of thousands of girls forced to marry as young as 13, and caused rampant child abuse, with boys "kicked out on the street" to reduce competition for older men seeking multiple brides. He said the state has an interest in preventing social harm.

Waddoups said the Browns' 17 children are irrelevant to the case, and Turley argued that sex and child abuse was just as common in monogamous families.

Waddoups challenged Jensen on whether Utah was cracking down on a religion. Most polygamists in the state call themselves fundamentalist Mormons, although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints renounced polygamy more than a century ago.

"Every state in the nation has these laws — and not every state has Mormon polygamists," replied Jensen, who argued that bigamy was not merely adultery. "I'll tell you what makes it different — the harm to women and children coming out of a polygamous relationship. We have a history of it in Utah — stories in the thousands."

Turley said Utah has to prove the harm of polygamy, not assert general statements. He argued the exile of young boys was a myth and that Utah was trying to enforce morality.

"We're asking for what Justice Brandeis called the most important constitutional right, the right to be left alone," Turley said, referring to Louis Brandeis, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939.

Date:
Saturday, December 22, 2012

Despite our grief over the slaughter of innocent children in Newtown, Connecticut, despite the re-election of the most pro-abortion administration in our country’s history, and despite the dark economic outlook, what keeps us full of hope and prevents despair is that a baby was born two-thousand years ago, and that this baby is mankind’s Savior.

From A Merry Pro-Life Christmas to You and Your Family | LifeNews.com

Pages