Census will strengthen GOP, weaken same-sex marriage movement for a decade

Monday, October 25, 2010

Earlier this fall I documented the effect the 2010 midterm elections will have on the overall movement to legalize same-sex marriage.

Our report based its conclusions on the notion that the Republican Party is poised to not only take control of the U.S. House of Representatives but also win majorities in many state legislatures across the Nation.
Real Clear Politics already projects that the number of House races in the “safe Republican”, “likely Republican” or “lean Republican” category is 223, five seats more than the GOP needs to take the gavel from Speaker Pelosi.

Most importantly, that 223 figure doesn’t take into account any of the 34 House seats considered to be toss-ups. The very idea of a toss-up means the GOP is likely to pick up at least half of them, which would bring them to somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 seats. That would equate to a 23-seat majority.

Yet this is the last House of Representatives the American people will elect before state legislatures across the country, using data from the 2010 Census Report, redistribute representation based on population shifts over the past decade. And this is what is likely to give the GOP a sizable edge going into the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

Based on the Electoral College results over the past four or five presidential elections, it is easy to divide most of the Nation up into blue states and red states. There are a handful of states that have no solidly blue or solidly red trend – which we call swing states. Going forward, these three distinctions will be necessary to keep in mind.

As you know, the amount of electoral votes a state has is determined by adding the number of representatives the state sends to Capitol Hill or – in other words, the number of representatives plus the number of senators. In this way, it is not constitutionally possible for a state to have less than three electoral votes as each state is entitled to two senators and at least one representative.

According to Election Data Services, there are six blue states that are likely to see changes in their congressional representation and thus, the number of electoral votes they may cast will also change.

With the exception of Washington, which is set to gain one seat in Congress, five other states are expected to lose seats. Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts are expected to lose one seat each while New York State is set to lose as many as two. This would amount to a net loss of 5 electoral votes for future democratic candidates for president, including Barack Obama in his re-election bid.

In of itself not that’s not too bad but what’s on the other side of that equation. Those states are losing representation in Congress due to population shifts. In short, people have moved away from the industrial cities of the Northeast. Where did they go? Surely they didn’t just disappear – and that’s the real killer for democrats.

Election Data Services is projecting that five red states are going to see a net gain of 6 votes in the Electoral College due to population shifts over the past decade. Texas, the state expected to see the largest gain, will grow from 34 to 38 electoral votes while South Carolina, Utah and Georgia are each likely to gain one.  Meanwhile, Louisiana and Missouri are each predicted to lose one.

That’s a +11 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the GOP going into the next three presidential elections. To put it another way, it would be like the GOP picking off Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont.
The Democrats are going to have to find those 11 electoral votes somewhere. Unfortunately for them, they won’t find much help from those swing states. The traditional swing states of Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will see a net loss of 1 due to the 2010 Census Report. 

Not only is that a +11 vote advantage for the GOP in the Electoral College but those new 11 votes exist because of the existence of new red-state-congressional-districts in the House of Representatives. That translates into an edge for the GOP in keeping control of the House after it's 2010 take-over. So, don't expect to see the Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed.

And indeed we will see appointments to federal benches and the even to the Supreme Court in the next decade. For this reason, among others, the 2010 Census Report spells more trouble, beyond what I detailed in the aforementioned political report on the midterms, for those who support same-sex marriage. 
READ MORE - Census will strengthen GOP, weaken same-sex marriage movement for a decade

Today's serving of the homosexual agenda (now eat it or we'll shove it down your throat)

Sunday, October 24, 2010

This is one of the leading gay rights
organizations in America and has been
on the attack lately. When will they be
open about their real agenda?

Ask a homosexual activist what the homosexual agenda is all about and you'll receive some bumper sticker slogans or if you're lucky, perhaps some talking points carefully crafted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). You may even get a non-answer, which denies the existence of the homosexual agenda altogether. All in all, you'll get a fluffy, feel-good answer that in of itself paints benign the homosexual agenda. 

One thing you're sure to hear is about how gays and lesbians just want to have a family, marry the person they are in love with and be with that person until death do them part. This is an example of one of those talking points, crafted in the image of what heterosexuals say about marriage, in order to portray homosexuals as no different. 

I should be looking over my shoulder from now on - I just inferred that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals, a big no-no in the LGBT community. In fact what I said was completely accurate and any rational person would agree. Homosexuals are different than heterosexuals in that they prefer in engage in sexual activities with a person of the same sex. That is a fundamental difference. 

That is not to say that homosexuals are any less human - or any less American. But to deny that fundamental difference is ridiculous. That fundamental difference in of itself does not necessarily warrant any different treatment of homosexuals, either. 

Now I know that I am often critical of the homosexual lifestyle. There are aspects of that lifestyle that are indeed worthy of criticism which I don't seek to get fully into now. Furthermore, the people that make up the homosexual community are to blame for that which ought to be criticized. Promiscuity, for example, is a controllable behavior which remains largely uncontrolled within the homosexual community. 

It is this promiscuity that is largely to blame for the higher-than-average, growing number of gay men who are HIV-positive. Many heterosexuals are also promiscuous but heterosexual promiscuity doesn't spread one of the world's most deadly deceases in the same way. A recent report from the Centers for Decease Control documented that 1-in-5 gay men were HIV positive. 

The promiscuity doesn't stop when gays and lesbians are provided with access to marriage, either. You'll often hear a talking-point rebuttal to criticism of homosexual promiscuity that suggests if gays and lesbians had the opportunity to marry each other, they would be more monogamous. A January 2010 headline printed in the New York Times reads: "Many Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret" and the article goes on to explain that secret.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many.
One thing you're certain not to hear from the homosexual activist is anything about how his (or her) agenda, if they haven't already denied the existence of it, will impact your life. They will outright deny the notion that their agenda is about forcing people to do what they don't want to do. 

They make light of it. "If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one," is one of the bumper sticker slogans they'll throw at you. In reality, though, and history has shown us, the homosexual agenda is all about a radical and forced change of society that reaches far beyond 'marriage equality'. 

After all, there will never be marriage equality without full acceptance of homosexuality. A married couple that is comprised of two people of the same-sex will always busy the back of most people's minds and words will be left unsaid merely out of courtesy and respect. 

It's like what Juan Williams said about Muslims on an airplane. He's not a racist or a bigot or a right wing conservative but, as he admitted, when he sees a Muslim dressed in Muslim clothing on an airplane, it catches his eye, it makes him nervous. 

The same thing is true of same-sex marriage. People will 'accept' them much like passengers will accept Muslim passengers on an airplane but no one knows what thoughts are brewing in their minds, behind their smile.

It is because of this cultural disapproval of homosexuality that the true homosexual agenda lies in making homosexuality as mainstream as possible and 'normal' in everyone's eyes. Those who stand against that will be forced against their will to accept it anyway and we can see this happening across the Nation. 

Take Indiana for example. A privately-owned, family-run Indiana cookie shop called "Just Cookies" refused to fill the order of a gay rights group which wanted rainbow-themed cupcakes made for a National Coming Out Day celebration.

The shop's owners, in part because their shop focuses primarily on baking cookies and in part because they do not support the homosexual agenda, faced a backlash from the LGBT community that led to picketing of the cookie shop and threats of eviction from the City Market on grounds of discrimination. The owners of the cookie shop had this to say:

"As citizens and owners of a small business, we pray that our country remains a free Democratic society and these rights are never taken away by anyone who seeks to unlawfully impose their will or agenda on others."

Take New Hampshire for another example. New Hampshire's largest newspaper, the Union Leader of Manchester, is under fire for refusing to print a same-sex marriage announcement as it goes against the beliefs of the newspaper that marriage "is and needs to remain a social and civil structure between men and women." The Union-Leader, like Just Cookies in Indianapolis, is a private company.

In so much that The Union-Leader is a private newspaper, it is also well-known to be a conservative paper. Yet in the eyes of homosexual activists, that doesn't matter and when a company, be it a privately-owned and politically conservative organization, refuses to support their agenda it amounts to discrimination and bigotry.

These two examples are just within the last month and amount to a very small part of the tip of the forced-homosexual-agenda iceberg. Do you remember Gavin Newsom, the San Fransisco Mayor and homosexual activist? He said same-sex marriage was coming to California "whether you like it or not." 

And indeed it would behooves us to remember indoctrination of homosexuality in public schools by teaching young school kids that same-sex relationships are no different from heterosexual ones. And do we really want to become a society like our neighbors in Canada or in the United Kingdom where the protection of homosexuals has infringed on the basic principles of free speech? 

Don't think it could happen in America? It already has happened. 

An upcoming comedy film starring Vince Vaughn has grabbed headlines recently over its removal of a scene that included a gay joke. The scene in question includes a line by Vaughn that goes "Electric cars are gay. I mean, not homosexual gay, but my-parents-are-chaperoning-the-dance gay."

Clearly comedy - but not for homosexuals who have been working on normalizing homosexuality but have only been successful in creating an atmosphere where people have to be careful of what they say for they may offend a homosexual. 

Vaughn, appropriately, defends the usage of the joke. 

READ MORE - Today's serving of the homosexual agenda (now eat it or we'll shove it down your throat)

ActRight offers conservatives a headquarters for competitive activism online

Friday, October 22, 2010

A new website is up and running that offers conservatives a central hub for online activism that will hopefully grow in strength to counter a liberal activism site funded primarily by George Soros.

ActRight offers a new kind of platform for online activism with an added competitive touch. Upon signing up and creating an account, which is quick and easy to do, you can donate to various conservative organizations from the National Organization for Marriage to the Susan B. Anthony List to the Heritage Foundation.

If donating to organizations is not your thing - or not enough, you can search for political candidates by name or state and donate directly to to them. Each candidate has their own page with embeddable widgets for your blog or website which come in a variety of sizes. The largest embeddable widget even includes a graphic detailing how much has been donated.

If you can't afford to donate anymore right now or this year, there's plenty of other ways the conservative activist in you can take action. You can search for and sign petitions - or if you can't find the petition you're looking for - you can create your own and then promote your new petition with easy share options for Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo and beyond. I've embedded an example petition to get you started right away.

I mentioned competition. Yes, the site automatically tracks your activism - what you've done and the actions you've taken with the causes, candidates or petitions that you support and gives you points based on how much of an impact you have made. Based on these points,  a leader board of the top activists gives credit where credit is due.

There's much more that could be said about this new site, which claims to be the online clearinghouse for conservative action. I don't want to give away all the site has to offer, it's best if you go take a look, create a profile and explore the site yourself.

That's where I'm headed right now.
READ MORE - ActRight offers conservatives a headquarters for competitive activism online

Study: Gay penguins not so gay after all

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

An article published by BBC Earth News today cites the first scientific study that looks into the homosexual tendencies of penguins and concluded that some penguins merely "flirt" with homosexuality.

The occurrence of homosexuality, the scientists conclude, is the result of a high male population or higher-than-normal levels of testosterone. What's more - the scientists claim the homosexual pairs formed between the penguins are not long lasting - something interestingly similar to homosexual pairs formed between human beings.

One of the researchers, Professor Dobson explained:

So these [homosexual] pairs can bond. But, bonded pairs can split up if one finds a more preferred partner.

That's interesting because nobody refutes that people involved in the homosexual lifestyle are among the most promiscuous people in the world. For example, gay author Gabriel Rotello wrote:

"Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity...I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun."

If only penguins could speak.

Homosexual activists often take the position that, because homosexuality occurs in nature that homosexuality is natural part of life. They use this as a talking point in the effort to mainstream their deviant sexual lifestyle which they are working to force upon an unwilling society. They, not me, compare gay and lesbian human beings to members of the animal kingdom.

I use their own comparison to demonstrate that, as the study demonstrated, the homosexuality members of the LGBT community compare themselves to is short-lived, has nothing to do with family and most importantly, the homosexual pairs were observed later on paired with a member of the opposite sex raising eggs in the breeding colony.

The bottom line is that the 'gay' penguin pairs do not stay together and in fact, return to a heterosexual lifestyle centered upon breeding and raising the next generation of penguins.

The LGBT community was so excited to see two 'gay' penguins hatch and raise a baby penguin back in 2005. We shall see their reaction to this scientific study. My guess is that the LGBT community will throw the penguins under the bus. It's won't be pretty.

So what's the point? The point is that gay and lesbians ought to be free to live the sexual lifestyle of their preference. They ought not to be treated differently because of their preferences. But when it comes to redefining marriage for the entire society, that's another matter.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with family and child-rearing, something at the very core of marriage. A piece of advice for the homosexual community:  Stop comparing yourselves to animals. It is precisely the ability of human beings to understand the difference between right and wrong, paired with our conscience, which makes us unique from the members of the greater animal kingdom.
READ MORE - Study: Gay penguins not so gay after all

Study: Gay and lesbian parents are more likely to have gay, lesbian children

Sunday, October 17, 2010

One aspect of the homosexual agenda, or perhaps strategy would be a better word to use, is to mainstream homosexuality in our society as the debate over gay adoption and same-sex marriage continues across the Nation.

That is why over the course of the past few years we have seen reports published that, for example, claim that the children of lesbian parents do just as well, if not better than, the children of heterosexual parents. Of course, this particular study has been discredited and earlier this year we explained how the entire study was a propaganda tool of the homosexual agenda.

The study I'd like to draw attention to has been printed for the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Biosocial Science and a summary of the article can be found at the end of this article.

Most interestingly, the study confirmed that:

Percentages of children of gay and lesbian parents who adopted non-heterosexual identities ranged between 16% and 57%...

This is interesting as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force puts the percentage of homosexuals in this country at somewhere between 3% and 8%. That represents a stark difference between the numbers presented by the study.

If 8% of the country as a whole are homosexuals and upwards of 16% of homosexuals' children are themselves gay or lesbians, it goes a long way to support the idea that homosexuality is, at least in part, a learned behavior - something the American Psychological Association (APA) would not refute, although they are highly supportive of homosexuality.

Last year the APA quietly came out admitting that there was no evidence of a 'gay gene', reversing a stance they held on the issue for over a decade and were only able to confirmed that many factors are at play when it comes to the determination of one's sexual orientation.

So what does this mean? Well, if the findings of the study are accurate and we as a Nation continue to impose social experiments on the family by way of gay adoption and same-sex marriage, it will equate into a larger population of homosexuals. Is that necessarily in of itself a bad thing? No, of course not.

On the other hand, homosexual activists are adamant that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples and allowing gay couples to adopt children will not have any adverse consequences. Quite the opposite taking into consideration the findings of this study.

What it means is quite possibility that within a few generations of full-fledged gay adoption and same-sex marriage, the number of Americans engaging in homosexual activity will reach a point of affecting population growth and will, short of a medical breakthrough, lead to a dramatic spread of the HIV virus.

Dramatic conclusion you may think.

Firstly, I do not intend to say that homosexual activity will ever grow to such a level that would kill off the species. So immediately I would clarify that I do not see an extinction of the human race at stake here.

However, it is valid to mention given the fact that the Washington State Supreme Court had this to say about the role of marriage in it's 2006 ruling in Andersen v. King County:

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.

Secondly, considering recent reports that 1-out-of-5 gay men are HIV-positive, it is quite fair to say that if the population of gay men increases, so will spread the HIV virus. The Center for Disease Control had this to say about gay men and HIV:

Gay and bisexual men of all races account for the greatest number of new HIV infections in the United States.
It's understandable that same-sex couples would like to adopt children. But let's keep adoption focused on what's best for the children. After all, adoption is about giving children the parents they need not giving parents the children they want.

For same-sex couples, adoption is not about fulfilling the needs of children but about fulfilling their objective to mimic the institution of the family which ideally consists of a mother and father who are married, and the child or children they conceive.

Now, the study I have been referring to is provided below. It was put together by Walter Schumm of Kansas State University who received his B.S. in Physics from The College of William and Mary in 1972, his M.S. in Family and Child Development from Kansas State University in 1976 before earning his Ph.D in Family Studies from Purdue University in 1979. 

Yes it is connected to Dr. Paul Cameron, a researcher highly disliked by the homosexual community for his work, but according to an AOL News article, it was this very same Dr. Paul Cameron who first wrote about the negative effects of secondhand smoke so in my book he's got some credibility.

READ MORE - Study: Gay and lesbian parents are more likely to have gay, lesbian children

Case before Supreme Court may offer preview of what is to become of Proposition 8

Friday, October 15, 2010

The City Council of the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage last December. Ever since, a coalition of social conservatives and religious groups have been working to bring the issue before the voters to decide, citing a provision of the City Charter which grants citizens of the District the right to hold a referendum on anything except "laws appropriating funds." Over the past year the effort has faced setbacks in both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

Bishop Harry Jackson of the Hope Christian Church
and leader of StandForMarriageDC, who I had an
opportunity to meet and work with twice during the
2010 Summer for Marriage Tour in Annapolis and D.C.
First, the coalition, which goes by the name "StandForMarriageDC", and is led by Bishop Harry Jackson, sued the District after the D.C. Board of Elections refused to grant them permission to hold a referendum to define marriage.

According to the Board of Elections, such referendum would have violated the city's Human Rights Act.

In January, 2010 the D.C Superior Court agreed with the Board of Elections and upheld their decision.

Congress had refused to intervene on the matter during their 30-day congressional review period, which they have over the city's affairs. Congress even has the ability to bypass the local city government altogether to pass legislation of their own. As a result, the same-sex marriage law went into effect on March 3, 2010.

Although Chief Justice John Roberts said Bishop Jackson's argument "has some force", he opted not to issue an emergency stay which would have put same-sex marriage on hold, at least temporarily. A full version of Justice Robert's decision can be read here.

Utah Senator Bob Bennett, facing a tough primary challenge from Tea Party favorite Mike Lee, tried in March to add an amendment to the health care reform legislation that would have prohibited the city from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex partners until the voters had a chance to weigh in on the matter. The Democrats were ultimately able to kill that amendment.

The next setback came in July right as the National Organization for Marriage was kicking off its 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour. StandForMarriageDC had appealed the January ruling from the D.C. Superior Court to the D.C. Court of Appeals, where in a 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed that a referendum on the definition of marriage would violate the city's Human Rights Act.

Since then we've seen Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in San Fransisco. We've seen part of the Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Boston. We also saw a very powerful rally in front of the U.S. Capital to wrap up the Summer for Marriage Tour.

In the video below, you can see Bishop Harry Jackson leading the people in a rally chant of  "Let the people vote, Let the people vote, Let the people vote".

There is no question that this issue is headed to the Supreme Court and most likely to be heard is the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case out of San Fransisco, which on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and set to kick-off in December. Much of the debate, however, centers on how the Supreme Court will rule in Perry.

On both sides people agree that four justices will affirm the right of same-sex marriage (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer) while four will almost certainly affirm traditional marriage (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) as something worthy of preserving and something the government has a legitimate state interest in regulating. That leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote.

The only debate lies in which way Kennedy will vote. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a historically significant Supreme Court case that ultimately struck down anti-sodomy laws in various states across the Nation.

However, in his opinion, Kennedy did not offer too much insight into how his legal mind reacts to the notion of governmental recognition of same-sex relationships. He wrote:

The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

In this Kennedy affirms the right of homosexual and heterosexuals alike to engage in sexual activities, which he calls "the most private human conduct" as they please. But he glosses over the issue of relationship recognition which was not at issue in this case.

There is part of his opinion, however, which is particularly interesting given the discourse on the topic of homosexuality in today's society. It also brings more light into which way Kennedy may swing in the Perry case. He continued:

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.
The last clause of that sentence is what is interesting. Kennedy points out that, while the State (or a court) ought not to regulate the boundaries of a relationship, he implies that such regulation is possible or even perhaps necessary, when a person is injured or more importantly, an institution the law protects is injured.

Marriage being in many ways an extension - or expansion of the boundaries of a relationship, it could be argued that the institution of marriage is one of those institutions protected by the law that may be "injured" as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage.

At the very least, Kennedy acknowledged that circumstances may exist when it maybe necessary to define the boundaries of a relationship and that is critical as we move forward. This is particularly critical given Justice Kennedy's comments on the homosexual relationship in general:

It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

First off, Kennedy wrote here that entering into a homosexual relationship is a choice. Secondly, he acknowledged that a private relationship between two people of the same sex taking place within the confines of their own homes is enough for one to "retain their dignity as a free person".

This is important as marriage is a public contract, not private, and homosexual activists claim the denial of marriage to same-sex couples is demeaning to their dignity and makes them second-class citizens.

It appears, unless Justice Kennedy has changed his mind, that the decriminalization of homosexuality so that to enter into an intimate homosexual relationship at your heart's desire ought to be enough for one to retain one's dignity as a free person.

Still, having taken all this into account, forecasting the Supreme Court's potential ruling in Perry is not entirely possible. After all, although most proponents of same-sex marriage count Justice Elena Kagan as safely in their corner, it was she don't forget, who said there is no right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution during her confirmation hearings. She is likely to vote for same-sex marriage but that is something to keep in mind.

So quite possibly one of the best forecasters we can use to "judge the judges" on this matter surrounds a petition, Jackson v. D.C., filed by StandForMarriageDC to the Supreme Court to appeal the negative ruling they received from the DC Court of Appeals in July.

If the Court agrees to hear the case, they will be hearing a case very similar to but substantially different from the Perry case. The two cases are similar in that they surround the issue of the right of citizens to vote on the definition of marriage via ballot initiative or referendum.

They are substantially different in that the Perry case will tackle the issue of a ballot initiative approved by the voters and then struck down while the petition from StandForMarriageDC will ask the Court to affirm the right of DC's citizens to vote in the first place.

Even a narrow ruling in this case out of DC, (if the Court agrees to hear it) would shed light onto the prospects of the Perry case. It is difficult to see the Supreme Court affirming the right of DC's citizens to vote on the definition of marriage, although many contend it violates the city's Human Rights Act, and then turn around and deny the right of Californians to do essentially the same thing.

Another possibility is that the Supreme Court won't hear the case and thus won't issue a ruling and we'll be left in the dark to merely speculate how Justice Kennedy's legal mind has evolved, if at all, over the past 7 years since Lawrence v. Texas.
READ MORE - Case before Supreme Court may offer preview of what is to become of Proposition 8

Boxer campaign hires day laborers to protest Carly Fiorina

Thursday, October 14, 2010

A video has been uploaded to YouTube in late September is finally being given the media attention it deserves.

Fox News has shined some light on it. Of course you couldn't expect MSNBC or CNN to cover something that would portray their fellow liberals negatively.Here's the Fox News article.

According to that video, made by Derek Broes on September 29th prior to a Boxer - Fiorina debate, two day laborers are holding a sign critical of Republican Senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina. 


Here's the catch: the sign was made by the Boxer campaign and the two laborers, one of which claims that he can't speak English, say they were promised to be paid by the Boxer campaign for their "services". If a picture is worth a thousand words, this video is worth ten times that. 

This is borderline exploitation. Here the Boxer campaign is offering money to those who would do anything to earn a dollar and who are likely in the U.S. illegally to hold a sign they can't get anyone else to hold. Is that a sign of how few supporters Barbara Boxer has in her camp? 

This reminds me of an article I came across earlier this month about a casting call for people to attend a Barack Obama event in Washington, D.C on October 13. At least that's a step up from enlisting (and paying) day laborers to support you. 

The worst part about it is that at least one of them doesn't even understand the content written on the sign he is holding, as he claims to not speak English. It is fair to assume that the ability to say one can't speak English doesn't demonstrate one's knowledge of English beyond that. I don't know Spanish beyond counting 1-10 but I can, if I needed to, say "No hablo EspaƱol".

Here's a key of advice, Barb. Maybe if your signs were more truthful, you wouldn't have trouble finding some of the constituents you represent and want to vote for you to hold them - and you wouldn't have to pay illegal immigrant day laborers.

READ MORE - Boxer campaign hires day laborers to protest Carly Fiorina

Does Wisconsin's domestic partnerships law violate the state's constitution?

Friday, October 8, 2010

In 2009 the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against a challenge to the state’s domestic partnership law enacted three years after over nearly 2/3rds of Wisconsinites passed Referendum 1, which reads as follows:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

Wisconsin Family Action, a pro-family, traditional marriage group with whom I worked with during the National Organization for Marriage’s Summer for Marriage Tour stop in Madison, WI this summer challenged the legality of the domestic partnership registry as in their opinion; it was substantially similar to that of marriage.

Wisconsin banned same-sex marriage
in 2006 with Referendum 1.
Today the same pro-family group is putting forth a second challenge to the registry for same-sex couples on the same grounds: The domestic partnership registry is too similar to marriage and violates the state law created by passage of Referendum 1.

This time the challenge comes only months after the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously to uphold the constitutionality of that very referendum, which was challenged by a political science professor on a technicality that it violated the state’s laws on referendums by posing two questions in one referendum.

So the question is whether or not Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnership law is substantially similar to marriage or not and so I’d like to put forth the information to compare the two and let you decide.

Besides the fact that the applications for a marriage licenses and the application for domestic partnerships are both obtained from the County Clerk, the similarities between the two don’t stop at that.

Wisconsin state statute 765.01 states that “Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.”

In the declaration of policy for the state’s domestic partnership law, the state states the following:

The legislature finds that it is in the interests of the citizens of this state to establish and provide the parameters for a legal status of domestic partnership.

So what’s the difference between the two? The marriage law seems to specify husband and wife but besides that the two civil contracts create a “legal status” between two people. I’m quite sure that when the Wisconsin State Legislature drafted its first marriage laws, it found that it was “in the interests of the citizens of this state to establish and provide the parameters” of such legal status, too.

Moving along. Wisconsin state statute 765.02(1) states that “Every person who has attained the age of 18 years may marry if otherwise competent.”

Wisconsin’s domestic partnership has a similar requirement. Two individuals may form a domestic partnership if they satisfy all of the following criteria:

(1) Each individual is at least 18 years old and capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.

So in marriage and domestic partnerships, both parties have to be at least 18 years of age. The law stipulates that both parties are “competent” for marriage and “capable of consenting” for domestic partnerships. No big differences there. Note: The above only shows one of the criteria for a domestic partnership; I’ll go through the rest now.

Next we move on to other issues of eligibility. For example, the issue of whether or not either of the aspiring marriage applicants are currently married – or if the person they want to marry is a close-blood relative. 

Well, as you would expect, Wisconsin state statute 765.03 states that “No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living, nor between persons who are nearer of kin than 2nd cousins…”

Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law has similar wordage:

(2)    Neither individual is married to, or in a domestic partnership with, another individual.
(4)    The 2 individuals are not nearer of kin to each other than 2nd cousins, whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption.
Above criteria 2 and 4 are mirror images of Wisconsin’s marriage law, going so far as to bring in the specificity about one’s second cousin. Look at the fourth criteria closely. It is almost as though they copy and pasted the marriage law. They both have the awkwardly sounding “nearer of kin than…” in reference to the second cousins.

Criteria three of the eligibility requirements for entering into a domestic partnership at first appeared to be a difference between the two. But honestly speaking, a criterion that you live together (literally “share a common residence” in the partnership law) goes without saying for marriage. I mean, it’s what married couples do. They live together. They have families. So there’s no difference there, either.

Criterion number five of the domestic partnership law is where a significant difference between marriage and domestic partnership sticks out like a car with five wheels. Criterion number five requires that both parties applying for a domestic partnership be of the same sex.

What? The first thing I thought was what about heterosexuals? How can, on one hand, the LGBT community be campaigning across the country against marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples but on the other hand support this domestic partnership law with excludes opposite sex couples?

It doesn’t matter that marriage may be ‘better’. Quite surely it is, to some. But shouldn’t opposite sex couples have the right to enter into a domestic partnership with their partner? What if they don’t like marriage? What if they were married once, got divorced and swore they’d never get married again, only to find and fall in love with someone else down the road?

I’ll have to revisit this issue later on. For now I want to continue comparing (there’s really not much contrasting going on, if you’ve noticed) marriage and Wisconsin’s domestic partnership law.

Wisconsin state statute 765.08(1) states that: “Except as provided in sub. (2), no marriage license may be issued within 5 days of application for the marriage license.”

That’s funny because I read that same thing in the domestic partnership law.

Except as provided in subd. 2., the county clerk may not issue a declaration of domestic partnership until at least 5 days after receiving the application for the declaration of domestic partnership.

Guess what? Subsection 2 is also very similar between the two laws.

Subsection 2 for the marriage law reads:

The county clerk may, at his or her discretion, issue a marriage license within less than 5 days after application if the applicant pays an additional fee of not more than $25 to cover any increased processing cost incurred by the county. The county clerk shall pay this fee into the county treasury.

Subsection 2 for the domestic partnership law reads:

The county clerk may, at his or her discretion, issue a declaration of domestic partnership less than 5 days after application if the applicant pays an additional fee of not more than $10 to cover any increased processing cost incurred by the county. The county clerk shall pay this fee into the county treasury.

Now that’s as word-for-word as it gets, folks. Oh, minus the extra fifteen dollars a couple seeking to get married must pay for expedited services. Please don’t tell me the difference between marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin lay in that little difference.

Wisconsin state statute 765.09(2) reads: “No marriage license may be issued unless the application for it is subscribed by the parties intending to intermarry, contains the social security number of each party who has a social security number and is filed with the clerk who issues the marriage license.”

Would it surprise you to find out that the domestic partnership law is a mirror image of that, too? I would hope that by this time, it would not be a surprise.

No declaration of domestic partnership may be issued unless the application for it is subscribed to by the parties intending to form the domestic partnership; it contains the social security number of each party who has a social security number; and it is filed with the clerk who issues the declaration of domestic partnership.

This is getting quite redundant, due to the fact that marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin are one in the same, so I’m going to pick up the pace a little. I’m going to lay out the facts and then the game will be to see if at the end of this article, you can, with a straight face, say that marriage and domestic partnerships in Wisconsin are “substantially different” as the law requires.

The marriage and domestic partnership laws both require that both parties “shall present satisfactory, documentary proof of identification and residence and shall swear to or affirm the application before the clerk who is to issue [it]. This is from Wisconsin state statute 765.09(3a).

Both the marriage and domestic partnership laws require that the respective application “shall contain the social security number of each party, as well as any other informational items,” that some government office may require. This is from the same Wisconsin state statute above.

That state statute goes on to finish “The portion of the marriage application form that is collected for statistical purposes only shall indicate that the address of the marriage license applicant may be provided by a county clerk to a law enforcement officer under the conditions specified under s. 765.20 (2).” And of course, word-for-word, with the replacement of “marriage license” with “application [for a domestic partnership]”, the domestic partnership law says the same thing. Word for word.

According to both marriage law and the domestic partnership law, both couples “must submit a certified copy of their birth certificate” but the law provides an out for both couples if a certified copy of their birth certificate is “unobtainable”. In such a case, both the couple applying for a marriage license and a couple applying for a domestic partnership may submit “other satisfactory documentary proof” of the requisite facts.

And what if the county clerk is not satisfied with the documentary proof provided? Well in that case, law stipulates that for both marriage and domestic partnership applications, the following: “Whenever the clerk is not satisfied with the documentary proof presented, he or she shall submit the presented proof to a judge of a court of record in the county of application for an opinion as to its sufficiency.”

So far the differences between marriage and domestic partnership in Wisconsin are the fact that 1) marriage is between a male and female and a domestic partnership is between two people of the same sex and 2) a more expensive fee for expedited services if you want to get married. Substantially different or substantially the same?

Not only are the fees to obtain a marriage license and to enter into a domestic partnership, but the way in which the money must be used by the County are identical for marriage applicants and domestic partnership applicants. Well, the domestic partnership law actually says it best:

770.17 Fees to county clerk. Each county clerk shall receive as a fee for each declaration of domestic partnership issued and for each certificate of termination of domestic partnership issued the same amount that the clerk receives for issuing a marriage license under s. 765.15. Of the amount that the clerk receives under this section, the clerk shall pay into the state treasury the same amount that the clerk pays into the state treasury from the fee collected for issuing a marriage license. The remainder shall become a part of the funds of the county. For each declaration of domestic partnership issued and for each certificate of termination of domestic partnership issued, the clerk shall also receive a standard notary fee in the same amount that the clerk receives as a standard notary fee in connection with issuing a marriage license and that may be retained by the clerk if the clerk is operating on a fee or part−fee basis but which otherwise shall become part of the funds of the county.

Information about the state’s domestic partnership law used in this article was obtained here.

Moving beyond the basically identical procedures of obtaining a marriage license and entering into a domestic partnership, it is necessary to go into differences in what benefits are available to domestic partnership couples versus married couples.

Bill 75 from the 2009 Wisconsin General Assembly contains a table of contents on page 6 that outlines the benefits granted to same-sex couples who enter into domestic partnerships.

These benefits include, but are not limited to, victim notification by the Department of Corrections, ownership of property and joint tenancy, health care, power of attorney, consent to autopsies, family and medical leave, and death benefits, among others. The full list can be seen here.

Most importantly, the list of benefits granted to couples in domestic partnerships is categorized by the authors of that very bill as “fairly extensive”. Altogether there are 27 areas of benefits granted.

The authors then go onto point out that there are some areas of family-relationship rights the domestic partnership law does not include. That list is on page 7 of the same Bill 75 and contains 22 areas of benefits not granted.

Altogether there are some 49 areas, or categories of benefits granted to married couples. Couples registered as domestic partnerships have access to 27, or 55% of them. But that is not actually really fair.

After all, two of the areas of “benefits” of family-relationship rights not afforded under the domestic partnership law are under the categories “marriage procedures” and “divorce”. That means same-sex couples have access to 57% of those benefit coverage areas.

Upon stating it’s opinion that the domestic partnership law was not “substantially similar” to marriage, the Legislative Council Staff, charged with the task of assessing whether or not the state’s domestic partnership law was or wasn’t “substantially similar”, the Council had this to say:

However, as noted previously, it cannot be concluded with certainty that a court would draw the same conclusions about the intent of art. XIII, s. 13 or the application of that provision to the domestic partnership proposal. Some uncertainty is inherent in attempting to determine how a court will interpret a constitutional amendment.

So you make the decision. Wisconsin’s same-sex domestic partnership law not only has almost identical procedures and eligibility requirements, but the legal status established through a domestic partnership offers nearly 6-out-of-10 of the benefits afforded to married couples and the domestic partnership status also affects how the couple can file taxes, just like it affects married couples.

The only differences between them, as I pointed out earlier, seem to be a difference in the cost of expedited services, the fact that marriage is restricted to opposite-sex partners and partnerships are restricted to same-sex partners.

Beyond that, registered same-sex couples have a greatly easier ability to terminate their domestic partnership whereas married couples must go through an official divorce. I would content that is a difference not in legal status between domestic partners and married couples but in the termination of said legal status.

Wisconsin Family Action is leading
the fight to protect the integrity of
marriage in the State of Wisconsin.
The new lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Family Action claims that the rights afforded to registered same-sex couples and the procedure for entering into a domestic partnership are too similar to marriage and gay rights groups in Wisconsin have come to the defense of their domestic partnership law.

READ MORE - Does Wisconsin's domestic partnerships law violate the state's constitution?

Fighting for same-sex ‘marriage’ through the courts: Short-term gains, long-term failure?

Thursday, October 7, 2010


I’ve been considering the notion that LGBT activists may be their own worst enemies when it comes to the legalization of same-sex marriage in America although they will adamantly claim that title belongs to people such as myself.

It is universally accepted that the gay and lesbian community have faced unquestioned defeat at the ballot box over the past decade. Thirty-one states have put the issue of marriage to the voters and all thirty-one times the people voted to define marriage between a man and a woman.


That is a pretty dismal record for same-sex marriage advocates. So dismal, in fact, that they have sought recourse from the will of the people by taking their case to the courts. Lawsuits have been filed over the past few years across this country from Massachusetts to Minnesota to California
Courtrooms like this have become the preferred battleground for gay activists
 in the pursuit of the homosexual agenda.
Most popular among these cases is quite possibility the ongoing battle over California’s Proposition 8. In 2008, the voters of California responded to a ruling by the CA Supreme Court which legalized same-sex marriage by amending the state constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman.

Today, the constitutionality of that ballot initiative is in limbo after San Francisco-based Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on August 4th that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional for a number of reasons.
The case is now on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court regardless of whatever decision the Appellate Court issues.

In Minnesota, where the first-ever same-sex marriage lawsuit in the United States was filed back in the early 1970s, a group called “Marry Me Minnesota” filed a new lawsuit this year challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage again.

The original lawsuit obviously wasn’t successful and although it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, the Court dismissed the case “for want of a substantial federal question”. This case, Baker v. Nelson, has been the federal precedent on the matter of same-sex marriage for the past 38 years.

Pamela R. Winnick explained the precedential weight of such a dismissal in the Columbia Law Review in 1976 in her comments under The Precedential Weight of a Dismissal by the Supreme Court for Want of a Substantial Federal Question: Some Implications of Hicks v. Miranda.

Gay rights groups in Minnesota are not happy about the lawsuit, fearing the conservative Minnesota Supreme Court could issue a ruling against the plaintiffs which would reaffirm the state’s 1972 precedent and set back the greater homosexual agenda for years to come.

In Massachusetts, a gay rights attorney was successful in her bid earlier this year to have part of the Defense of Marriage Act deemed unconstitutional by a Boston-based judge, again, for a number of reasons.

In Wisconsin, a political science professor sought to have the state’s 2006 voter-approved referendum banning same-sex marriage deemed unconstitutional on a technicality. The State Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the professor this summer and affirmed the constitutionality of the referendum approved by nearly two-thirds of Wisconsinites.

In Wyoming, reports came out in August that a gay couple was challenging the state’s law that defines marriage specifically as the union of “a male and a female person.”

The gay couple were representing themselves before U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson in the case but suddenly dropped their lawsuit after gay rights groups in the state wouldn’t support them, claiming the lawsuit would, again, jeopardize the greater homosexual agenda.

Lawsuits are pending or active in other states across the Nation but the real question is whether or not the strategy of circumventing the voters through the courthouse is a good strategy or will it backfire?


Make no mistake about it. Gay rights advocates have a much better success rate in the courts. Of the five states that have same-sex marriage today, three of them legalized same-sex marriage through judicial order.

This year alone, as mentioned earlier, Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act were deemed, at least in part, unconstitutional. Seems like their strategy is working – if you’re near-sighted that is. But what about the long-term outlook where the stakes are higher?

Of all the legal victories the homosexual activists can be proud of over the past few years, they are but one legal defeat away from losing everything. Will all of their legal victories be trumped by one coming loss in the Supreme Court?

The Proposition 8 case will be appealed to the Supreme Court which is “the most conservative court since the 1930s,” wrote Erwin Chemerinsky in The Los Angeles Times.  If that’s the case, it’s unlikely that a majority of them will find a right to same-sex marriage implied by the U.S. Constitution.

Facing defeat in the Supreme Court, as they likely will, the gay and lesbian community will be left to the mercy of state legislatures willing to grant them the now-ruled-to-be privilege, not the right, to marry a person of the same-sex. Quite frankly, the states legislatures that would hypothetically grant such a privilege already have done so.


Why I would be offering strategy advice to the gay and lesbian community on how they may actually achieve nationwide same-sex marriage is beyond me but knowing of their strong disdain for me on a personal level, I would expect them to do the opposite of whatever I say. Ever hear of the phrase bite off your nose to spite your face?

The real strategy for same-sex marriage in America is the American people. Poll after poll suggests that opposition to same-sex marriage weakens.

A Gallup poll from March 1996 showed that 68% of Americans disapproved of marriages between homosexuals while 27% were in favor. This polling data was taken during the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act and demonstrates a supermajority of Americans favoring marriage between a man and a woman and believing that only such marriages should be valid.

By 2004 that supermajority had slimmed 13 points to 55% of Americans who indicated disapproval of same-sex marriages. The majority of those 13 points went to the other side, bringing the percentage of Americans in support of same-sex marriage in 2004 to 42%.

Gallup came out with more polling data in 2007 indicating that only 53% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage and 46% were in favor. Think about that. A decade passed and support for same-sex marriage grew by 19 points while opposition to it dropped by 15. See the video below for more information.


I believe this is in part where the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) comes from. The “About NOM” section of their website reads:
Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level.

Indeed, a decade of polls were showing strong gains for same-sex marriage advocates. The founders of NOM realized there was no organized group on a national level tackling this issue and informing the public of the importance of preserving marriage between a man and a woman.

It is no surprise then, that Gallup polls from 2008 and 2009 both showed increases in public opposition to same-sex marriage peaking at 57% in 2009 before leveling off at 53% this year. That May 2010 Gallup poll showed that only 44% of Americans support same-sex marriage, a 2-point drop in support since 2007.

It is fair to say that the National Organization for marriage has, at the very least, made the public take a second look at same-sex marriage, which would explain the abrupt halt in decreasing opposition to it, and at the very best, turned the momentum of public opinion around, which would explain the decrease in support for same-sex marriage since 2007.

Considering our report analyzing the impact of the 2010 mid-term elections on the same-sex marriage movement, it is fair to say that the prospects for new legislative efforts to redefine marriage are slim and will remain slim through 2012 when conservatives will be motivated and voting in high numbers (again) in opposition to Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

Chief Justice John Roberts
Therefore, elections that take place over the next couple years are going to bring about victories for conservative candidates, especially those candidates backed by the Tea Party.  Generally speaking those types of candidates are not sympathetic to the homosexual agenda.

Now consider the current conservative lean of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Robert’s Court is unlikely to liberalize anytime in the near future, certainly not before the Court decides the marriage issue in the next few terms.

The question is whether or not this conservative Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts will trump a decade worth of legal victories same-sex marriage advocates have enjoyed in the lower courts. For same-sex marriage advocates, it’s a huge all-or-nothing risk to take.


Especially when public opinion polls indicate fluctuating, yet generally growing support for same-sex marriage over the past decade. American society has become more and more liberal since the 1960’s.

Gallup Poll from December 24, 2009.
Meanwhile, although 78% Americans still claim to be Christians, fewer and fewer Americans understand what Christianity is and were unable to answer basic questions about the Bible in a recent survey conducted by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Compare that to the 89% of Americans that claimed to be Christians in 1973 and 91% in 1948. Likewise, Atheism has grown by over 150% since that 1978 poll.

CNN published a 2009 article America becoming less Christian, survey finds and wrote: “America is a less Christian nation than it was 20 years ago, and Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether.”

It’s not that Americans are necessarily growing more approving of same-sex marriage or the homosexual agenda; it’s just that they just don’t care anymore.

William Donahue, president of the Catholic League attributed the survey’s findings to the growth of individualism, the article reads, and told Lou Dobbs: "The three most dreaded words are thou shalt not… they are saying I don't want to be told what to do with my life."

Now the LGBT community is on the verge of losing it all in the Supreme Court with only their impatience to blame. A 2013 or 2014 Supreme Court decision against same-sex marriage would be devastating to their cause and will set them back decades, regardless of the direction public opinion polls go.

I can very easily see a time in the not-so-distant future when a 2015 Gallup poll, for instance, shows for the first time that a majority (or at lease plurality) of Americans support same-sex marriage. But by then that won’t mean anything because the recently printed Robert’s Court ruling affirming marriage as a legitimate state interest which may be limited to a man and a woman will still have that fresh-out-of-the-printer smell. Have you ever smelled a new book? You know what I’m talking about.


It’s clear as day that America’s moral compass has been knocked around and the calibration has since been thrown off. The moral direction our country is going makes me think of the Perfect Storm movie. The interesting thing is that, according to Real Clear Politics, over 60% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, too.

And this is, of course, welcome news for gays and lesbians who utter separation of church and state arguments like champion orators. It’s a case of too-bad-for-them, very-good-for-us as even their best orators won’t be able to surmount the looming strength of recent Supreme Court ruling against their cause.
READ MORE - Fighting for same-sex ‘marriage’ through the courts: Short-term gains, long-term failure?

Gay activists conduct first legal demonstration in Moscow

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, dismissed from office Sept. 27
by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. 
As an American citizen currently residing in the Russian Federation I have taken a particular interest in the recent development in Moscow regarding Yuri Luzhkov, the now former mayor of Russia’s capital, who was recently fired after a series of scandals led the President to lose confidence in his leadership.

Mr. Luzhkov has been an adamant opponent of homosexuals.

I chose the words of that statement very purposefully as there is a difference between opposing the homosexual agenda, opposing homosexuality and opposing homosexuals themselves.

Yuri Luzhkov’s actions against the gay and lesbian community during his tenure as Moscow’s Mayor went beyond the pale.

Chapter 2, Article 31 of Russia’s Constitution reads: “Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons, hold rallies, meetings and demonstrations, marches and pickets.”

Yet year after year, Mr. Luzhkov refused to grant gays and lesbians permission to do so, claiming a gay pride parade, for example, would be ‘satanic’. To make matters worse, every time they held a rally or demonstration in spite of the ban, Mayor Luzhkov had the police break up the rally and arrest the participants.

Besides denying gay and lesbian Russian citizens their constitutionally-protected right to a peaceful assembly, Yuri Luzhkov is on record publically insulting them, singling them out and calling them ‘faggots’, among other slurs.

This is the kind of rhetoric we could do without and although I recognize that his rhetoric and opposition to gays and lesbians is not related to his removal from office on September 27, in the name of human and constitutionally protected rights I praise President Dmitri Medvedev’s decision to fire him.

The gay and lesbian community in the United States plays the victim status like champions yet the discrimination and harassment they face is nothing compared to what existed under Mayor Luzhkov.

As a side note it would be pertinent to give Mr. Luzhkov credit for, over the course of the last 18 years, transforming Moscow into a modern and commercial metropolis of the 21st century. That will likely be the legacy that he leaves behind and the people of Russia will remember him for that.

A gay activist on September 21, a week
before Mayor Luzhkov was fired.
That is why I was I fact delighted to read the headline in The Moscow News, a newspaper currently celebrating 80 years in print, that reads: “Moscow police protect gay protesters”.

Apparently, three days after Luzhkov was removed from office, gays and lesbians assembled together in Moscow and held their first legal demonstration. The police came in heavy numbers but this time they were protecting the protesters and the two that were arrested were counter-protesters, men dressed in black in opposition to them.

Nikolai Alekseyev, a well-known gay rights activist in Russia, said the event was historic. “Sexual minorities for the first time ever were able to demonstrate while being protected by the Russian police. I think this is a historic day.”

The same gay activist on October 1,
three days after Mayor Luzhkov was fired.
Indeed it was. These are the kind of rights that all must support for gays and lesbians and I stand with them today in support of these rights, in praise of Moscow’s police and with hope for continued progress.

Out of fairness it should also be mentioned that the permit for this rally wasn't specifically for a gay rights demonstration but was connected to the recent unexplained arrest and detention of a gay activist. City officials said if the demonstration's message changed beyond what the permit for the rally specified, that the police would be ordered to break up the demonstration.

However, I must reiterate that while we support the basic human and constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, there is no right to marry a person of the same sex. Let us all understand the difference between gay rights, which are parallel to human rights, and the pursuit of same-sex marriage, of which there is no right.

This right does not exist in the Russian constitution.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in June that:
"Article 12 enshrined the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The court acknowledged that a number of contracting states had extended marriage to same-sex partners, but went on to say that this reflected their own vision of the role of marriage in their societies and did not flow from an interpretation of the fundamental right as laid down by the contracting states in the Convention in 1950."
It doesn’t exist in the U.S. Constitution, either. Rookie Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan took that position in her confirmation hearings and the same idea is supported by federal precedent in Baker v. Nelson.

READ MORE - Gay activists conduct first legal demonstration in Moscow


November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition