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

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.

We laid out our opposition to any form of same-sex relationship recognition in September. 

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?

LOSS AFTER LOSS

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.

TAKING IT TO THE COURTS

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 4^th that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional for a number of reasons.

The case is now on appeal to the 9^th 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?

OUTLOOK MOVING FORWARD: ARE THEIR LEGAL VICTORIES NUMBERED?

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.

WHAT THEY OUGHT TO DO BUT ARE TOO IMPATIENT TO DO

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.

THEIR STRATEGY IS DOOMED TO BACKFIRE

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.

MORALITY IS AWOL

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

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 21^st 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

Lesbian Parenting Study: Research or Propaganda?

So I came across a series of headlines that refer to a recent study which says that children of lesbian couples grow up just as well as children in households where there is both a mother and a father. These articles drew my attention because it goes right in the face of one of the core arguments of the effort to protect marriage: the idea that marriage is about family made by mothers and fathers together, who play distinct parental roles.

Dr. Henny Bos,
co-investigator

Dr. Nanette Gartrell,
lead investigator

Upon finishing the article I sat back and thought I better prepare for the onslaught of homosexual activists who will be coming to my Facebook page to post this article and to scream its results at the top of their internet lungs. And then I immediately wanted to know who conducted this study.

I'll be honest. My first impressions of the research team led me to start accepting the study as legit and professional. I mean, the research team is led by a Doctor Nanette Gartrell, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Center of Excellence in Women's Health for the University of California at San Francisco and a former faculty member at the Harvard Medical School. The setting of all this being in San Francisco raised a little red flag but I let it go at the time. After all, coincidences do happen, right?

Also on the team was Doctor Henny Bos, an Assistant Professor of Childhood Education and Family Support at the Department of Education of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. Talk about a long name, right? Dr. Bos is listed as a co-investigator.

So far my investigation into this study has concluded that it was conducted by an international team of doctors with expertise in relevant fields. The other project research staff includes a registered nurse at the San Francisco General Hospital, a statistical analyst who is a former member of the Stanford Medical School faculty and a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

At this point anyone opposed to homosexual parenting must be pretty discouraged. That staff is pretty solid and I'll be the first to admit it. 

That is when the truth became clear to me. At the bottom of their webpage is a link to their supporters and funders. I'd like to go through each of these funders and let my readers decide for themselves if this study was research or propaganda. Remember, the project staff is a highly professional team. So all that is left are those behind the study, providing the grants and necessary financial assistance.

The first funder is The Arcus Foundation. It didn't take me more than ten seconds to understand what their position on this matter is. Upon opening their website, in big orange letters one will clearly read that The Arcus Foundation funds "pressing social justice and conservation issues." Furthermore, they openly claim to "work to advance LGBT rights". LGBT is an acronym used often in this report and stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender". The Arcus Foundation also seems to be interested in protecting the great apes but that's an unrelated matter.

As of June 1st, 2010, they have a new Executive Director, Fred Davie, who is replacing Urvashi Vaid so she can go off to write a book (most certainly a LGBT rights book) and, according to their site, "to continue her longstanding leadership role in the LGBT and social justice movements." I'll come back to Urvashi Vaid later on.

On to funder number two. Based in San Francisco like much of the project research team, The Horizons Foundation is another group which proudly and clearly states its support for the LGBT community on its website - this time in blue. Within ten seconds one will immediately understand that The Horizons Foundation "serves the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community." At least that's what they have printed right smack dab in the middle of their home page.

So what is this organization? Who runs it? Well, its Executive Director is Roger Doughty, who has served in many different posts around the country - all promoting the LGBT agenda. For example, Roger has worked as the Executive Director of Horizons Community in Chicago, IL. For those of you unfamiliar with that group, it is the largest LGBT social service and advocacy group of the Midwest.

Before that, Roger was the Director of Program Administration for the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center. He was (is?) the President of Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance in Washington, D.C. and since 1998 has been a board member on the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

Practically the each of the staff members of The Horizon Foundation are LGBT activists, lawyers and advisors.

Devesh Khatu is their Development Officer. He boasts that he is a "long-time volunteer at organizations that serve the LGBT community."

Their Program Officer, Jewelle Gomez, was a founding member of the Astraea National Lesbian Foundation and wrote a book which won two awards from Lambda Literary - a national gay book review organization that annually celebrates the best of lesbian and gay books.

The third funder is The California Endowment, which after a ten-minute review of their website, board of directors, mission statement, etc, I must say seems like a legit operation not controlled by the homosexual agenda like the first two. The same goes for The California Wellness Foundation, the project's fourth funder. So far we've got two LGBT activist groups and two neutral organizations. 

The Colorado-based Gill Foundation is the fifth funder. In blue letters along the top of its website the Foundation claims its status as "advocates for LGBT equality." The foundation openly supports the legalization of same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

The founder of The Gill Foundation is himself a homosexual, married to another man and claims to be a strong supporter of social justice.

Remember Urvashi Vaid, the outgoing Executive Director of The Arcus Foundation? Well, she has been a board member of The Gill Foundation since 2004. The Gill website also speaks about The Arcus Foundation as "a funder of the LGBT movement," except here they give us more detailed information about Urvashi herself.

Apparently, she's a community organizer just like our current President. She worked for four years as the director of the Governance and Civil Society Unit of the Peace and Social Justice Program. She also claims to have worked for many years with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in various roles including Executive Director.

She's worked for the ACLU as an attorney and is a former columnist for the Advocate, a gay publication.

In 1996 she authored the book "Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Lesbian Liberation." So wait a minute. Does that mean that one of the funders of this research project is an expert on "mainstreaming" homosexuality? Wouldn't these research results do just that - make homosexual parenting acceptable and thus, eventually mainstream? 

So the next funder is not going to need any further explanation beyond its name but I will include some for for a little added flavor.

Funder number six is the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) which boasts itself as the "leader in LGBT health since 1981".

Officially, the organization claims to be the world's largest and oldest association of homosexual, bisexual and transgender health care professionals.

However, it's worthy to point out that this so-called "health care association" runs its very own "marriage equality initiative" aimed at creating a link between the same-sex marriage movement and GLMA's supporters in order to "bring the medical community's weight to the table of marriage equality." Their words, not mine.

Funder number seven is the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, which promotes and supports human rights, and according to its website is dedicated to social change and justice in the United States. Their website is seriously deficient of information. Nevertheless, a few minutes of research turned up some details which give us a clue as to its political leanings. This Foundation is listed as a human rights funder on the Human Rights Funders website.

Here is where Mertz Gilmore areas of grant funding are listed. Among those listed are "sexual minorities" and "equality". Now don't let that throw you off. It's part of their overall PR strategy to make homosexuality mainstream. Only relatively recently have homosexual activists begun to inject the word "equality" into the marriage debate. A visual example of this is GLMA's "marriage equality initiative" but earlier the PR strategy was about legalizing "gay marriage" and then it was about legalizing "same-sex marriage" and now it's about "marriage equality". 

After the first glance of the eighth funder, I thought we had our third neutral organization. But that was just my initial impression of the American Psychological Foundation. Any foundation that has been awarded for "combating homophobia" is clearly pro-homosexuality. 

Now combating homophobia maybe a noble cause. Homosexuals are people just like everyone else and should be treated like people. I'm a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage but that's not because of any hated of homosexuals. Nevertheless, boasting about combating homophobia is the type of language only used by those on that side of the issue.

The American Psychological Foundation is brought to you by The American Psychological Association, which removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders back in the early 1970s. However, in 2009 they quietly confirmed that there is no evidence of a "gay gene".

However, if that doesn't satisfy you for proof of their tilt, I'd like to present for your reading pleasure a February 2010 publication by the American Psychological Association entitled "Claiming a Place at the Family Table: Gay and Lesbian Families in the 21st Century".

The PDF starts out something like this: "In light of recent setbacks to marriage equality…" Setbacks? You mean the restoration of marriage in California in 2008? Or do you mean the rejection of same-sex marriage in Maine in 2009? Those aren't setbacks, those are steps forward and anyone who claims they are setbacks clearly is on a homosexual agenda.

Next on our list of funders is the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation, which sports an amateur website and doesn't provide much information at all - at least about its political leanings. The website is dedicated to applying for one of their grants. 

However, a simple Google search of the Foundation provides the information we are looking for. For some reason The Family Equality Council comes up when you search them. Well, what is that organization? Seems like a play on words mocking the Family Research Council, a pro-traditional marriage group which opposes same-sex marriage.

But the Family Equality Council, according to its website, "works at all levels of government to advance full social and legal equality for LGBT families by ensuring that they are included in legislation, policies and practices impacting families." The Equality Council openly supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law defining marriage between a man and a woman.

So how is that associated with the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation? Well, maybe it would have to do with the fact that one of the places I checked my spelling of "Babson" when writing this report was on the list of supporters of the Family Equality Council. Yes, along with the LGBT Bar Association, The Arcus Foundation (remember them?), and The Gill Foundation, the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation is listed as a financial supporter of the Family Equality Council. 

The Uncommon Legacy Foundation is the tenth funder on our list and they don't have a website but a Google search pulls it up real quick. Apparently, it's a scholarship fund which dishes out $1,000 to "outstanding lesbian undergraduate and graduate full-time students". In order to receive the scholarship, one must demonstrate their commitment or contribution to the LGBT community.

As a side note they claim to have the website "www.uncommonlegacy.org" but I was unable to load it. That maybe due to the fact that I am in Russia at the moment and for some reason, I often have trouble accessing pro-homosexuality websites. Give it a shot. 

So we have one funder left to discuss and there are only two neutral organizations which funded this research and eight biased financiers which are dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda.

Our final funder is The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. According to its website, the Williams Institute "advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship," which it hands over to "judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public."

Bradley Sears, the Executive Director of the Williams Institute, interned for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, the national gay rights legal advocacy group which is currently involved in lawsuits around the Nation to legalize same-sex marriage and to repeal DOMA. He also interned for the ACLU's National Gay and Lesbian and AIDS Project. 

The Williams Institute's Research Director, Lee Badgett, is an author of two gay-themed books focusing on the economic lives of homosexuals and about the future of society after the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Its Development Director, Matt Strieker, is a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. He's also active in the Young Professional's Council, which is affiliated with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center.

The list of participants at the Williams Institute goes on and on - too far for me to list them all but it even goes as far as Taya Ball, the Administrative Assistant, who wrote a gay-themed thesis for her B.S. in Psychology. 

This Institute is monopolized by the gay agenda.

Let's bring it full circle. Doctor Nanette Gartrell, the one who led the twenty year study is herself a Williams Distinguished Scholar. Yes, of the Williams Institute at UCLA mentioned above. Beyond that, personal lives are personal lives but in this case it can't be ignored. Dr. Gartrell is a lesbian and married to the feminist, activist and filmmaker Diane "Dee" Mosbacher. 

So long story short, I'd hope that my investigative report has at the very least provided you with reason to not accept the results of this new study (propaganda?) as they are presented to you.

Nine out of eleven of the project funders openly and actively support the homosexual agenda. One of its key members is a specialist focused on making homosexuality a mainstream part of society. This is a clear aspect of their plan - present "research" (propaganda), which contradicts the common belief that homosexual households are not the best environment for raising children.

Children not only need a mother and a father but have the right to a mother and a father. When circumstances don't permit that, it is unfortunate. It doesn't mean that we should start promoting and encouraging that unfortunate circumstance by supporting same-sex marriage/adoption or the general homosexual agenda as a whole.

This article was originally printed on June 7, 2010 on our original website. It has been reposted here as we continue to transition to this website.

READ MORE - Lesbian Parenting Study: Research or Propaganda?

Charlie Crist Supports Same-sex Civil Unions and Why it's Wrong

Most of the talk about compromising on the issue of same-sex marriage revolves around legalizing civil unions for homosexual partners as an alternative to same-sex marriage. This is a compromise that should be avoided if you value the traditional meaning of marriage between a man and a woman.

Some are saying that
the once Republican,
now Independent
Charlie Crist will say
anything to get elected.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a candidate for Senate running against Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek as an Independent after bowing out of the Republican primary after facing defeat, has recently come out clarifying his support for gay rights, including support of civil unions and same-sex adoption.

On the other hand, Crist underscored his opposition to same-sex marriage. To support same-sex civil unions in the place of same-sex marriage is a losing stance to take, historically speaking and here's why.

Currently, five states and the District of Columbia recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Three of these states – Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire – all started with civil unions for same-sex couples.

On July 1st, 2000 Vermont became the first U.S. state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples which provided the same rights and status as marriage. Nine years later, when Vermont would legalize same-sex marriage in the spring of 2009, Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for Lambda Legal, praised Vermont for its ‘important steps forward’.

“Vermont opened an important back door,” she said, referring to the civil unions. “Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage.”

In neighboring New Hampshire, there is another same-sex-civil unions-to-same-sex-marriage pattern. In 2007, the New Hampshire House and Senate passed its civil unions bill, which provided the same rights and status of marriage. Governor Lynch said he supported same-sex civil unions because it was a matter of “conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination,” and the new law became effective January 1, 2008.

It would be only two short years before New Hampshire state legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and on January 1, 2010, the law took effect. Per the same-sex marriage law, couples who entered into civil unions will see those civil unions legally designated and recorded as a marriage on January 1, 2011 if they don’t manually apply for a marriage license before then.

Gov. Lynch changed his
stance on same-sex
civil unions, too: That
they weren't enough. 

Mr. Lynch, who is up for re-election this year, defended his flip flop on the issue saying that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.” He would go on to repeat his reasoning for supporting same-sex civil unions and apply it to same-sex marriage:

“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”

Isn’t that why the homosexual activists pushed for civil unions in 2007? New Hampshire State Senator Fenton Groen’s comments on the same-sex marriage law couldn’t be any more accurate: "The pro-gay marriage people have been very disingenuous. They told us two years ago that if civil unions were passed, that would completely satisfy them. Within two years, they have completely changed their minds."

Well, what did one of New Hampshire’s gay residents, Rob Davis, who entered into a civil union in 2008 with his partner Dean Davis, say about the civil unions? "It didn't go far enough."

In Connecticut the situation was very similar. Legalized in 2005, civil unions for same-sex couples provided for the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. By doing this, Connecticut became the second U.S. state to adopt civil unions.

Connecticut, like its neighbor to the north, brought up legislation for same-sex marriage only two short years after implementing civil unions. It passed the House Judiciary committee that year and although Governor Jodi Rell promised to veto the legislation because she felt that civil unions for same-sex couples “covered the concerns that had been raised,” the Supreme Court of Connecticut guaranteed same-sex marriage rights the following year in 2008.

So in this case the court intervened to convert civil unions into marriage. Was it a surprise? Not for lesbian Anne Stanback, president of the Love Makes a Family consortium. In 2003, she was advocating domestic partnerships for same-sex couples where she argued: “Would passage of such a bill be an important step forward? Absolutely. Would it be the end of our fight? Absolutely not!”

Brian Brown, President of the
National Organization for Marriage.

Brian Brown, who once worked with the Family Institute of Connecticut and is now the President of the National Organization for Marriage, put it this way: "Some legislators thought civil unions was a way out," he said. "They falsely think it is some kind of compromise, but the proponents have made clear that civil unions is only a stepping stone to full same-sex marriage."

That’s exactly right, Brian, and it can be seen in New Jersey, too. In fact, had Republican Chris Christie lost in his election bid to replace Jon Corzine as Governor of New Jersey, gay marriage would be legal there today and would likely be legal in New York State, too.

New Jersey legalized civil unions for same-sex couples back in 2006, which made the Garden State the third U.S. state to offer such civil unions. Saundra Toby-Heath and her partner were among the seven gay couples who sued the State of New Jersey to redefine marriage. With the adoption of civil unions in 2006, Saundra said "We acknowledge this is a huge step forward."

According to an Associated Press news article from December 15, 2006, gay rights groups also shared her sentiment, saying that not calling the civil unions “marriage” created a different and inferior institution. They did, however, welcome the civil unions as a step towards full same-sex marriage.

Then in 2008 a commission full of gay rights advocates was set up to examine civil unions in New Jersey. You know what they concluded? That the civil union law created “a second-class status” for same-sex couples.

According to a statement on one of New Jersey’s largest gay rights organizations, Garden State Equality, the goal is same-sex marriage: “Garden State Equality is fighting for real marriage equality and will not settle for civil unions, which are separate, unequal and do not consistently work to protect same-sex couples in the real world. But civil unions are a notable step forward.”

New Jersey’s state legislature voted against same-sex marriage late last year after Chris Christie was elected and lawmakers failed to rush the same-sex marriage bill to outgoing Governor Corzine’s desk in a midst of scheming that gave democratic process in New Jersey a bad stink. That was luck. Before the election, the gay marriage bill was on track for passage and approval by the governor.

Political winds at the time allowed a republican to be elected governor of one of America’s bluest states. Had Corzine been re-elected, he would have fulfilled his promised to sign same-sex marriage legislation into law in early 2010.

Civil unions have historically
not been satisfactory for
same-sex couples and have
paved the way to eventual
same-sex marriage. 

So this point here is that the homosexuals and their activists pushing the homosexual agenda are not up for compromising. Their goal is same-sex marriage; gender-neutral marriage in every state across the Nation.

Legalizing civil unions is not a good strategy because a few years later, they will use that as the framework as a steppingstone to pushing for same-sex marriage. In their own words it is clear. Barbara Cox, associate dean at California Western School of Law and co-chair of the national Freedom to Marry Organization:

“But we aren’t going to get marriage until we get civil unions. You know, the people that I have talked to in Vermont, the people who are doing this nationwide, keep saying we need to do that [civil unions] as an important first step. But what I believe that what we have to do as a community is that each one of us has to
walk out of here tonight saying. ‘This is something that I can do to make a step forward.’”

Don’t allow same-sex civil unions. Supporting same-sex civil unions is the same as supporting same-sex marriage. If you value marriage between a man and a woman you must oppose any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples that mirrors or mocks marriage.

READ MORE - Charlie Crist Supports Same-sex Civil Unions and Why it's Wrong