CatholicVoteAction.org

Why do we even have elections? it seems our ruling class will decide what’s best for us.

After a long public debate, California voters went to the polls in 2008 and voted to make marriage in the Golden State as a union of one man and one woman.

Ah, doesn’t matter! A federal judge has just ripped Prop. 8 to shreds and declared that same sex couples can get ‘married,’ too. From the New York Daily News:

A federal judge shot down California’s ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, ruling it unconstitutional.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled.

Whatever happened to the notion that ” Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?”

The highest court in New Jersey rejected a challenge to the state’s marriage laws. The AP reports:

The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, saying the case needs to wind its way through the lower courts first.

Gay couples unsuccessfully sued New Jersey four years ago for the right to marry. They claim that by creating civil unions, the state has not fulfilled a court order to treat them the same as heterosexual couples seeking to marry.

The Supreme Court said Monday that it cannot consider whether the civil union law provides equal rights to gay couples until there is a trial record.

The justices were split 3-3, one vote shy of the four needed for the motion to be granted.

Well, they did the right thing. But the court didn’t say they would never rule on it. They simply rejected a short cut through the judicial process. Apparently the court thinks the rules should be the same for everyone. What a thought! But the 3-3 vote was still too close for comfort.

From Boston.com:

“A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

“Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.”

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”

This doesn’t make any sense. The federal Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent states like Massachusetts from having so-called ’same-sex’ marriages. It simply affirms that Kansas doesn’t have to recognize a same-sex marriage from Massachusetts. The law is perfectly federalist in nature.

Without DOMA, Kansas would be obligated under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution to recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts.

But the Constitution is also very clear about jurisdiction on this clause. From Article IV, Section I:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

This federal judge must have stopped reading after the first sentence. Either that or he thinks he is Congress. Either way, he’s off his rocker.

Maggie Gallagher, President of Nation for Marriage, warns us that the federal court in California is all but certain to overturn the will of the people and void Prop. 8. California voters in 2008 approved Prop. 8, which established marriage in California as between one man and one woman. She sat in court and provided excellent live coverage of the trial via NOM’s twitter feed.

Here’s the statement she gave after both sides made their case:

“Chuck Cooper is a heckuva lawyer. At stake in this case is the future of marriage in all 50 states, and he’s right that this attempt to shut down the debate by constitutionalizing gay marriage will backfire. Americans have a right to vote for marriage. Ted Olson doesn’t seem to understand the argument, and judging from today’s exchanges neither does Judge Walker. I expect Judge Walker will overrule Prop 8.   But millions of Americans do understand why marriage is the union of husband and wife and I believe the majority of the Supreme Court will as well.”

Gallagher says a Supreme Court fight is all but certain.

Read the rest of this entry »

After calling for an end to the military’s ban on homosexuals serving in the military, President Obama has declared for a second year in row that June is “LGBT Pride Month.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

We should treat all persons with dignity, but sorry, Mister President, I will not observe this month.

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.  From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline.  They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors.  Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.

There is no doubt of course that LGBT Americans have made positive contributions to society, but as Joe Carter of First Things noted, these contributions have nothing to do with their sexual behavior.

Obama went a step further in his proclamation this year: He called for the end of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed with large bipartisan majorities and signed by President Clinton.

Much work remains to fulfill our Nation’s promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.  That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Let no one doubt that Obama stands for “change.” He wants to sign a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the only thing standing in the way of judges forcing counterfeit marriages on all 50 states.

It’s been known for a long time that former First Lady Laura Bush doesn’t support legal protection for our youngest brothers and sisters in the womb.

She not only confirmed that today, she doubled down and came out in support of ‘marriages’ for couples of the same sex. ABC News reports on her interview with Larry King.

“There are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman. But I also know that, you know, when couples are committed to each other and love each other, that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has.”

Mrs. Bush said she and the ex-president “disagree” on legalizing same-sex marriage.

“I understand totally what George thinks and what other people think about marriage being between a man and a woman. And it’s a real, you know, reversal really for [them] to accept gay marriage,” she said.

When King asked if she could accept gay marriage, the first lady said: “I think we could, yeah.” “You think [legalization of same-sex marriage] is coming?” asked King.

“Yeah, that will come, I think,” she replied.

The discussion on whether to remake our marriage laws should not be focused on whether or not certain people can accept such changes. Marriage is an institution that primarily benefits children and it’s one that prevents men from deserting their family. It’s unpopular to say it, but marriage is a great benefit to women and children.

It’s an institution that has stood the test of time and pre-dates governments. Strong societies recognize that their very existence requires that they uphold, defend and promote this wonderful institution. It’s unfortunate that Laura Bush doesn’t appreciate that fact.

The Maryland Catholic Conference released a statement a couple days ago, criticizing the opinion by Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler that out-of-state same-sex ‘marriages’ could become recognized as marriages in Maryland.

Here is snippet of the statement written by Archbishop Edwin O’Brien of Baltimore, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, Bishop Francis Mooley of Wilmington. (Both Abp. Wuerl and Bp. Mooley have portions of the State of Maryland in their dioceses.)

We take strong exception to Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler’s opinion that the state may recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other jurisdictions. We trust our legislature and the people of Maryland will also object, and will act accordingly to counteract this opinion.

The General Assembly has repeatedly and explicitly upheld Maryland’s definition of marriage “between a man and a woman” even as certain limited benefits have been extended to same-sex couples. The opinion correctly notes that federal law does not require Maryland to recognize such marriages. We see a strong possibility that legal avenues to circumvent the legitimate legislative process on a serious public policy issue could be opened. Allowing the decisions of out-of-state jurisdictions or courts to dictate public policy in Maryland undermines the proper role of the legislature and the citizens they represent.

The rest of the statement after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »

Like daughter, like mother.

Cindy McCain, wife of 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, has posed in a picture for the pro-gay marriage “NOH8″ campaign. It takes its name from Proposition 8, which ended so-called same-sex ‘marriages’ in California. Her daughter, Meghan McCain, had earlier posed for the NOH8 campaign.

It is deeply insulting, of course, to suggest that if you support Proposition 8, you must be full of hate.

And one wonders why the woman who almost became our First Lady thinks that her husband’s position on marriage is based on hate. (While John McCain did not support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on marriage, he did support Proposition 8 in California and the marriage amendment in Arizona.)

Cindy McCain of course can believe whatever she wants on the issue. It would be nice, of course, if she didn’t insult those who disagreed with her. But it is also deeply frustrating when political spouses contradict, thereby undermining, the agenda of their spouses. It would be one thing if the spouse, like Maria Shriver, were already well known to the public before they were married. (In fact, you can imagine Maria’s surprise that Ahnuld ever wanted to run for office.) But Cindy McCain is someone only known to the public because of her spouse. And she can’t claim surprise that John would run for office.

Imagine if Nancy Pelosi’s husband actually supported Proposition 8. Unlikely, I know, but not impossible. Now, if Paul Pelosi went public with it, would you be surprised if Nancy Pelosi’s supporters got furious? He would be known as “Nancy Pelosi’s husband” and he would be using that relationship to gain media attention. He would then be willing to promote a political cause even if it meant undermining his wife’s career. And that would be wrong, even if I thought you were right on the issue.

In the photo, she has duct tape covering her mouth, which is meant to symbolize “the voices that weren’t heard.” That’s baloney. California had a vote. The people’s voices were heard. They said no to same-sex marriage.

But I do wish Cindy had kept her mouth shut.

I find it interesting that the following article is in the “fashion” section of the NYT:

“Gay Marriage” advocates begin utilizing children as a tactic to show their true family values.

In recent years, an increasing number of these children — ranging in age from 10 to nearly 40 — have taken active roles in campaigns organized by Colage (formerly known as Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere), and civil rights groups like Lambda Legal and Glad (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders). Their involvement is helping to change the narrative of same-sex marriage to a story about families from one about couples.

One can hardly blame them. With much of the dsyfunction showed by heterosexual families (like the South Carolina’s governor), this does look like a family, b/c people rarely see what a good family looks like.

The most important thing for Catholics to do won’t be to find kids in these homes who have been traumatized by gay marriage, but to form our own families in the image of the Holy Family so that people regain a sense of what a “family” really is supposed to be. Until then, polygamy, homosexual marriages, etc. will continue to parade children and parents as “families” and America will not have the experience of a true family necessary to stand strong.

The U.S. Bishops continue their strong defense of marriage.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, the chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage issued a statement on recent marriage victories in New Jersey, New York and Maine. From LifeSiteNews:

“On behalf of the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee, I am grateful for the courage of those New Jersey senators who stood for the truth of marriage as a bulwark of the common good,” he said.

The New Jersey Senate voted 20-14 to reject a same-sex “marriage” bill. In December, New York Senate had also rejected a similar measure by a 38-24 margin. And last November, the people of Maine voted to repeal a same-sex ‘marriage’ law passed by the State Legislature.

“Preserving marriage between one man and one woman is a matter of justice; indeed it is one of the premier social justice issues of our time. It does not deny but rather supports basic human rights — especially the rights of children,” Archbishop Kurtz said. “The recent New York Senate vote and the vote in New Jersey witness to this fact.”  [Emphasis mine.]

“The recent decisions in Maine, New York and New Jersey are signs of hope and sources of encouragement. We are in a pivotal moment in this country on the issue of marriage, as more and more people recognize that protecting the basic rights of persons need not and should not come at the expense of the unique truth and value of marriage.

“The good of the love between husband and wife, the vital responsibilities of mothers and fathers, and the rights of children all deserve unique protection under law — all of these are indispensable to a just society that serves the dignity of all people and the common good.”

Kudos to Archbishop Kurtz for his strong statement on marriage.