Posts

Myth of Democracy: Country Legalizes Gay Marriage Despite Population Voting Against It 3 Times

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Slovenia’s Constitutional Court has legalized gay marriage and gay adoption despite the country’s population voting against it in three separate national referendums.

The country became the first former communist eastern bloc country to legalize homosexual marriage, but it did so in complete violation of the democratic will of the people.

“On July 8, six judges voted to legalize same-sex marriages and adoptions, while three voted against,” reports Remix News.

“The majority argued that a ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. According to Radio France, the ruling came after two gay couples filed complaints that they could not marry or adopt children.”

Slovenians last rejected gay marriage in a 2015 national referendum, with 60 per cent voting against it, the third such repudiation of the matter. (Read more from “Myth of Democracy: Country Legalizes Gay Marriage Despite Population Voting Against It 3 Times” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.

Michigan Farmer Fights Back Against City Banning Traditional Marriage Supporters From Farmers Market

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A small-town farmer in St. Johns, Michigan, got creative in his fight against East Lansing city officials, who banned a family from selling produce at the local farmers market because they refuse to host same-sex weddings on their family farm. Watch the video to hear how he’s fighting back against city officials who he claims are discriminating against farmers and their religious beliefs.

(For more from the author of “Michigan Farmer Fights Back Against City Banning Traditional Marriage Supporters From Farmers Market” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Could We Please Quit Pretending It’s About Marriage Equality?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education is opposed to marriage equality. Representative Tom Price, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of HHS, is also opposed to marriage equality. Three other Trump Cabinet selections are against marriage equality, according to the strongly pro-gay Human Rights Campaign. Vice-President-elect Mike Pence has been working against it for years.

Brian Soucek, an acting professor of law at UC Davis, views all this with alarm. He wants to ward off “the threat to marriage equality in California” by repealing Proposition 8 — in case a future U.S. Supreme Court repeals its recent pro-gay marriage ruling.

I hate to tell him, but whether or not Proposition 8 is repealed, there’s going to be marriage inequality either way. There’s marriage inequality even now, under Obergefell v. Hodges. The case was always billed as a battle for marriage equality, but that was never what it was about.

It’s time we quit pretending. It isn’t just Donald Trump’s Cabinet that disbelieves in marriage equality. It isn’t just Jimmy Seibert, controversial pastor to HGTV’s Chip and Joanna Gaines. It’s Brian Soucek, too. It’s the Human Rights Campaign, along with virtually every other gay activist. It’s all of us.

No one believes in marriage equality.

No one, that is, except members of the hyper-radical fringe who want to do away with marriage altogether. They’re the only ones who really believe in marriage equality. Otherwise “marriage equality” has never been anything but a slogan.

Rhetoric in Action

It’s a good one, as slogans go; I’ll grant it that. Borrowed straight from America’s most magnificent noble ideals, it’s got the all right stuff to pack a a powerful rhetorical punch. Why shouldn’t marriage equality be self-evidently a human right, just as much as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Who could possibly oppose such a positive vision?

But it gets better. The phrase also trades in the guilt we’ve felt over falling short of our country’s founding ideals. No sensitive human being would be caught dead being against it — not after all the ethical and social failures we’ve been guilty of for so long. We’re not making those mistakes again!

There’s a problem, though. For all its rhetorical usefulness, “marriage equality” can’t be a self-evident human right if it’s self-evidently self-contradictory and impossible — which is exactly what it is.

What “Marriage Equality” Would Mean, if Anyone Really Meant It

Consider what would happen if we took equality seriously as a primary principle for deciding what should count as marriage. It would mean calling an end to all of our exclusionary biases, like our prejudice against father-daughter marriages, multiple-partner marriages, sibling marriages, indeed, any relationship that anyone wants to label “marriage.” If you want marriage equality, that’s the only way you’ll really get it.

Of course LGBT activists are always quuick to tell us “No! That’s not what we meant!” They’re not at all interested in setting the stage for polygamy or incestuous marriages, they say; and I believe them. I just have trouble believing the part where they tell me at the same time they’re for marriage equality, because clearly they believe in marriage inequality, too, beyond their chosen line of marriage demarcation.

We All Draw Our Lines of Equality and Inequality

We all have lines of marriage demarcation. Marriage conservatives place our boundary in the space between opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships. Couples on one side of that line may be candidates for marriage; couples on the other side cannot. Couples on one side all deserve fully equal access to marriage (certain other reasonable conditions being in place, of course). In other words, we believe in marriage equality, but only up to a certain line; beyond that there is inequality, as we freely admit.

Marriage revisionists draw a line that looks almost exactly like our line, other than including same-sex couples. They, like we, are quick to exclude underage persons, incestuous relationships, polygamy and so on. As one pro-gay commentator wrote on the day the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, “Justice Kennedy today wrote the opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, finding state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and securing full marriage equality for gays and lesbians across America.” Marriage equality extends to gays and lesbians, now, but no further. In other words, LGBT activists believe in marriage equality, but only up to a certain line; beyond that there is inequality, as they freely admit.

Now I’m sure you’ve caught it already, but it bears repeating: we all believe in marriage equality up to a certain line, and inequality beyond that line. We all agree on marriage equality, and we all believe in marriage inequality. Our only disagreement is over the location of the line.

Some Lines are More Principled Than Others

So how do we all decide where to place our lines of marriage exclusion? Marriage conservatives can make a strong, principled case for the location of our line. It has to do with history, with family and community stability, with the social and physical health of individuals (especially women), and much more.

Those who stand for gay marriage can make no such principled case. Virtually all the arguments they make for gay marriage work just as well for any sort of couple, threesome, foursome, etc. that wants to call their relationship “marriage.” So why don’t these others get “marriage equality,” too? LGBT activists have been quick to say, “We don’t intend that for a moment! We’ve only asked to have marriage equality for gays and lesbians.” But why? From here it looks perfectly arbitrary.

Or maybe it’s not so arbitrary. Their line is in exactly the right place to gain the social approval they’ve needed for their cause. Activist leaders have long cautioned LGBT people against asking for too much too soon, knowing that they would surely suffer a backlash if they pushed too hard. This marriage-equality line of theirs looks suspiciously as if it’s landed where it is because it suits gay activists’ political purposes.

Enough Pretending Already

At any rate it should be clear enough: we all agree on marriage equality up to a certain line, and inequality beyond it. Our only disagreement is over the placement of the line. So let’s call this “marriage equality” slogan what it is: it’s a sham. Marriage equality isn’t real. The slogan exists only to arouse patriotism and guilt, and to make the conservative view on marriage appear morally inferior. Given that we all believe in marriage equality up to a certain boundary, however, it is no moral fault to prefer a principled boundary over an arbitrary one.

But LGBT activists will undoubtedly continue the sham. They don’t dare quit it. They can’t afford to give it up; it’s too much of a rhetorical powerhouse for them. They have to keep on pretending it’s about marriage equality. But we don’t have to keep letting them get away with the pretense. (For more from the author of “Could We Please Quit Pretending It’s About Marriage Equality?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Says Alabama Must Perform Gay ‘Marriages’

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against enforcing Alabama’s law banning same-sex “marriage,” despite the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision upholding that law.

In March 2015, shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, which ruled that same-sex “marriage” is a Constitutional right, the state Supreme Court had ordered probate judges to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, saying the state law remained in effect.

In January of this year, Chief Justice Roy Moore reaffirmed that 2015 state Supreme Court decision. In an Administrative Order he reminded the state’s judges that the ban on same-sex “marriage” remained in effect, and advised them not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples . . .

However, U.S. District Judge Callie V. Granade ruled last week that state officials are bound by the United States Supreme Court’s decision.

Judge Granade’s injunction is permanent, preventing judges and any official “who would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama that prohibit or fail to recognize same-sex marriage” from doing so. (Read more from “Judge Says Alabama Must Perform Gay ‘Marriages'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Phoenix Artists Threatened with Jail Time If They Don’t Serve Gay Weddings

/0 Comments/in , /by

A lawsuit filed in Arizona claims a city ordinance forces local artists to use their talents to promote same-sex weddings and does not allow them to express freely their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative, Christian legal organization, filed a pre-enforcement challenge to Phoenix’s city code May 12 for Breanna Koski and Joanna Duka, owners of Brush & Nib Studio based in Phoenix, Ariz.

Koski and Duka, who want to honor God through their art and business, specialize in hand painting, hand lettering, and calligraphy for events, like weddings.

Phoenix law “strips artists of their freedom to choose what to create and what to say in the marriage context,” the complaint against the city says. If Koski and Duke were to turn down creating art to celebrate a same-sex marriage, the city could fine them up to $2,500 for each day they violate the law and make them spend six months in jail, since their studio creates art for opposite-sex wedding ceremonies, according to the complaint.

“Artists shouldn’t be threatened with jail for disagreeing with the government,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement. He added:

The government must allow artists the freedom to make personal decisions about what art they will create and what art they won’t create. Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean she is required to express all viewpoints. It’s unjust, unnecessary, and unlawful to force an artist to create against her will and intimidate her into silence.

Alliance Defending Freedom also filed May 12, in the Maricopa County Superior Court, a motion of preliminary injunction on behalf of the artists. The accompanying motion says Phoenix city code forbids public accommodations from discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation and gender identity, among other factors. The preliminary injunction brief says:

These rules should not affect Brush & Nib since Brush & Nib decides what art it will create based on the art’s message, not the requester’s personal characteristics.

But Phoenix’s interpretation of [the city code] puts Brush & Nib in the crosshairs. Phoenix construes [the city code’s] ban on sexual orientation discrimination to require public accommodations to provide any service to same-sex couples that they would also provide to opposite-sex couples, regardless whether those services are expressive in nature or not.

A spokesperson for the city of Phoenix told The Daily Signal that the city had not yet been served as of Monday morning, so she cannot comment until they are.

“Artists don’t surrender their freedom of speech and freedom from coercion when they choose to make a living with their art,” Jonathan Scruggs, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement. “Government can’t censor artists or demand that they create art that violates their deepest convictions.” (For more from the author of “Phoenix Artists Threatened with Jail Time If They Don’t Serve Gay Weddings” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s Really at Stake With SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?

/9 Comments/in , /by

SCOTUS gay marriage APOne of the more destructive behaviors of those engaged in politics is the willful conflation of political or moral arguments with constitutional and legal arguments. Nowhere is this more evident than with debate over coercing states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, and three other cases in which district and appellate courts were split, on whether to toss out state marriage laws or not. Two months ago, the 6th Circuit upheld Ohio’s right to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby establishing a split with other federal circuits and creating the need for intervention of the Supreme Court.

What is before the Court?

In order to understand what is at stake this week, and eventually in June when the court renders a decision, we must first discern what is not before the court.

The court is not rendering an opinion, nor should it, on the morality or prudence of same-sex relationships. That is a question for society to answer.

The court is not rendering an opinion on whether two consenting adults have the liberty to live together in all ways. They certainly have that right and have been doing so for quite some time.

The issue before the court is whether there is a federal constitutional right for same-sex partners to obtain a marriage license, thereby preventing the people or legislators of sovereign states from defining marriage as it always has been since the nation’s founding.

This is not a question of religiosity or a debate over culture. That is a societal conflict that will be settled outside of court. Even the strongest supporter of homosexuality or the idea of a same sex marriage cannot deny the fact that there is no mention of any form of marriage in the Constitution. States have plenary authority over marriage. Justice Kennedy’s primary argument for overturning DOMA was that it represented federal encroachment on a state’s “broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relationships” (even though DOMA only defined marriage for federal purposes); certainly it would be hypocritical of him to now create a federal mandate barring states from defining marriage.

Corrupting the 14th Amendment

Supporters of federal coercion contend that their aspirations are mandated by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. But that is a prima facie absurdity because everyone in this country, including homosexuals, indeed have the right to marry. If they don’t desire or feel unable to marry the way the term has been defined since creation, that is not a denial of their due process. Remember, every homosexual couple also has the right to live together without a marriage, much like many heterosexual couples do in our generation.

What plaintiffs are asking is for the federal court system to simultaneously change the definition of marriage (which is not mentioned in the Constitution) while precluding states from maintaining their own definition through their democratic processes. It is simply beyond reason to believe that the 14th Amendment was drafted to prevent states from denying a status that nobody would have conjured up at the time, especially a status that runs counter to Natural Law and Common Law. In the very least, proponents of same-sex marriage need to use the democratic process to change the definition of marriage in order to achieve their goals. And judging by their bravado about recent polls, what do they have to fear from letting the people decide?

In order to assert a new fundamental right, the Supreme Court has laid out a constitutional test in Washington v Glucksberg (1997) when the court ruled unanimously that assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest. The asserted right has to be so “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” To prove a substantive due process violation of that right the court has ruled in Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales (2006) that the aggrieved person must show how this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

How can anyone assert such a claim of a concept that was not even conceived until this generation, thereby bypassing the political process to create that right?

Where is this headed?

Furthermore, what plaintiffs in the marriage cases can never answer is this: if marriage – as dictated by federal courts – is no longer defined as a special union between one man and one woman, what is the definition of marriage? They would have to define marriage, in the course of redefining it. They would have to draw parameters but it seems there is absolutely no legal jurisprudence one can employ to include homosexual relationships in the definition of marriage and not polygamist or incestual relationships

If anything, there is more of a Natural Law argument to include those relationships before homosexual ones because they can procreate. Unless of course, the court here is more interested in solving a political matter, than a legal one.

Accordingly, there is no rational basis for any one of the Justices to decide in favor of coercing states to adopt homosexual marriages but not all other relationships. Yet, four and possibly five Justice are so driven by personal beliefs that rational basis and legal jurisprudence will never sway their decision. So what is this really about?

The only way the Court can arrive at the conclusion so many in the media are supporting is for them to create a new protected class carved out exclusively for homosexuals. By using the court to create a new fundamental right and protected class instead of the political process to resolve a societal question, the Court will codify the anti-religious bigotry we’ve witnessed over the past few years into law. An Oregon baker, for example, is facing a $135,000 fine for not engaging in involuntary servitude to provide a specific service for a homosexual wedding.

Perforce, what is really before the court tomorrow has nothing to do with liberty, love, and equality for homosexual relationships; it is all about corrupting the Constitution and using the boot of government to violate the individual and religious rights of the other 97% of the population. (See “What’s Really at Stake With SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?”, originally posted HERE)

[Editor’s note: The following is a recent interview with this article’s author]

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

My Father Was Gay. Why I Oppose Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Daily Signal

Photo Credit: Daily Signal

It took me decades to come to my views on same-sex “marriage” in light of my personal experiences.

From infancy, I was unwittingly identified under the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (GLBT) umbrella. During the first 30 years of my life, I garnered many personal, social and professional experiences with my father, whom I always loved, and his partners. My father, a successful executive recruiter, taught me a strong business ethic.

My Childhood

I was exposed to a lot of expressed sexuality in the home and subcultures. I experienced uncountable losses. Gender was supposed to be boundless; yet, I did not see my father and his partners valuing, loving and affirming women. My father’s preference for one gender (male) created an inner sense of inequality for me.

As a dependent child and teen, I was not allowed to say anything that would hurt the feelings of the adults around me. If I did, I could face ostracism or worse. During my twenties, I achieved both academic and career goals, but for a long while, I denied the impact my childhood had had and lied to protect my father and his partners.

In 1991, my father died of AIDS. None of my father’s partners/ex-partners are still alive. (Read more from “My Father Was Gay. Why I Oppose Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Over 300 Prominent Republicans Come Out of Closet in Support of Homosexual ‘Marriage’

/11 Comments/in , /by

Over 300 prominent Republicans have signed a brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court calling for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The amicus brief, or friend of the court brief, was led by former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Ken Mehlman, who also served as manager of George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign . . .

The brief argues that the 14th Amendment requires equal protection, which means that homosexuals should be permitted then to marry each other.

“Although amici hold a broad spectrum of socially and politically conservative, moderate, and libertarian views, amici share the view that laws that bar same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage, with all its attendant profoundly important rights and responsibilities, are inconsistent with the United States Constitution’s dual promises of equal protection and due process,” it reads.

Besides Mehlman, others who signed the brief include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, two aides to 2008 presidential candidate John McCain and his daughter Meghan, and several aides who served Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who ran for office in 2012.

List of Amici

(Read more from “Over 300 Prominent Republicans Come Out of Closet in Support of Homosexual ‘Marriage’” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alabama Official Ordered to Issue Marriage Licenses to Homosexual Couples

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: IB Times By Reuters. A federal judge on Thursday ordered an Alabama official to comply with her earlier ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex matrimony and start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, while advocates said couples in most counties were still unable to obtain licenses.

U.S. District Judge Callie Granade’s order clarified that Mobile County Probate Court Judge Don Davis should follow her directive despite a contravening order from Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore that led many state judges to refrain from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

The ruling marked the latest twist in the controversy over gay marriage in Alabama, where probate judges have faced conflicting orders from federal and state courts. The resulting disarray has allowed some same-sex couples to marry in places such as Birmingham, while those applying for marriage licenses in dozens of counties were turned away.

Granade’s order applied specifically to Mobile County, where, within an hour of the ruling, same-sex couples who had been waiting in line at a county building began to receive licenses.

Judges in the other 43 of Alabama’s 67 counties that have refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples did not immediately begin issuing them in the wake of Granade’s order, advocates said. (Read more from ‘Alabama Official Ordered to Issue Marriage Licenses HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Here’s What Your State’s View of Homosexual Marriage Is

By Victoria Taft. A new survey shows American tolerance or support of same-sex marriage has increased a whopping 21% between 2003 and 2013.

The Public Religion Research Institute, which routinely polls issues pertaining to abortion and LGBT issues, says the differences are stark from one decade to the next . . .

Here’s what your state’s voters think about same-sex marriage.

(Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chief Justice Roy Moore Defies Feds, Urges Alabama’s Judges to Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses

/7 Comments/in , , /by

By Sandhya Somashekhar. On the day that same-sex unions became legal in Alabama, local officials in dozens of counties on Monday defied a federal judge’s decision and refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, casting the state into judicial chaos.

Gay couples were able to get licenses in about a dozen places, including Birmingham, Huntsville and a few other counties where probate judges complied with the judge’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled early Monday that it would deny Alabama’s request to put the marriages on hold.

But in the majority of counties, officials said they would refuse to license same-sex marriages or stop providing licenses altogether, confronting couples — gay and heterosexual — with locked doors and shuttered windows.

Many of the state’s 68 probate judges mounted their resistance to the federal decision at the urging of the firebrand chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. He is best known for refusing more than a decade ago to comply with a court order to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the state Supreme Court’s offices.

In Mobile, about 10 gay couples who had expected to be granted licenses first thing in the morning found the marriage-license window closed indefinitely. (Read more about the refusal to marry homosexual couples HERE)

___________________________________________________________

Alabama’s Largest Paper Mocks Christian Judge: Is Roy Moore a Closeted Homosexual?

By Tim Graham. The Birmingham News is the largest newspaper in Alabama (even though it only publishes a print edition three times a week now.) That could be in part due to leftist pranks. The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, has defiantly ordered a halt on gay marriage licenses, prompting News commentator Kyle Whitmire to offer a Readers Poll on Sunday asking “Is Roy Moore a closeted homosexual?”

Liberals apparently love this question, because the poll results are 71 percent yes, 6 percent no, and 22 percent “Maybe, but just that one time in college.” It probably won’t be shocking to note that until he joined the News, Whitmire was a stringer for The New York Times for seven years (2005-12).

Moore, a Baptist married with four children, is best known for insisting on having the Ten Commandments posted in his courtroom, leading to court fights with secularists — and popularity with Alabama voters. (Read more from this story about Chief Justice Roy Moore and his fight against unconstitutional federal acts HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.