LSN: New York clerk fights for right not to participate in same-sex "marriage"

VOLNEY, New York, June 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - While religious organizations in New York are allowed not to participate in gay “marriage,” the same right of conscience has been denied to individual citizens – an injustice that one rural town clerk is fighting against.

Town clerk Barbara MacEwen is responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Volney, near Syracuse. She told Politico Tuesday that she has written to her senator asking for help determining her legal options.

“If there’s any possible way to not do it legally, then yes, I would not want to put my name on any of those certificates or papers,” MacEwen told the political news service. “That’s their life, they can do it, but I don’t feel I should be forced into something that’s against my morals and my God.”

She should not have to do it.

"Gay" is not a race, a religion, an ethnic group, or anything else that can be legitimately defended by anti-discrimination laws.  It is simply a perversion  and a disorder.  You cannot define yourself simply by how you choose to stimulate your genitals and expect to be treated as a persecuted minority.

Forcing someone to participate in something that goes against their moral beliefs is an injustice.

Sodomite "Marriage" Passes in New York

So, the state of New York decided to legalize same-sex "marriage" in defiance of God's laws and the will of the people.  Well, that's just what I needed on my birthday.

I have grown so weary of this wicked and perverse generation.  We've been doing nothing but sticking our fingers in the eyes of God since at least the 60s.  First the sexual revolution normalized promiscuity, contraception and abortion, now the fruits of that movement are alive in the movement to force society to recognize homosexual lust as "normal" when God's Word calls it what it is; a perversion.

To the State of New York; shame on you all!  You've not only defied the will of the people when poll after poll shows Americans OPPOSE same-sex "marriage", but you've defied God.  The State has no right to pass laws that contradict Natural and Divine Law.  What you have done is an affront to Almighty God and now all we can do is pray that God will mercy on you.

Congressman Nye Seems to think Prop 8 ruling is no big deal

A while ago, I wrote to my Congressional Representative, Glenn Nye (D-VA) asking him to oppose the Prop 8 ruling of Judge Walker.  This is what I got from him.

Dear Mr. Jurek,

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to Judge Walker's ruling in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which, if upheld, would overturn Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.  It is helpful to learn the views of my friends and neighbors in Hampton Roads and on the Eastern Shore, and I appreciate having your input.

On Wednesday, August 4th Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that California Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage "cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause" and that "excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."  However, immediately following the ruling, Judge Walker put a stay on his own opinion, pending the expected higher court challenge.  The opinion only applies to California and does not affect federal law, which does not recognize same-sex marriages.
Judge Walker was first nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.  Due to his conservative record, his confirmation was delayed for two years by Congress. 

I believe in the balance of power between the three branches of government and have confidence in the process of the Judicial Branch. Should Congress consider any related legislation, I will be certain to factor your recommendations into the decisions I make. 

Thank you again for sharing your views.  I am proud to serve Virginia's Second District, and I am committed to working hard for you.  If you would like more information about the issues I am working on in Congress, or if you would like to sign up to receive my monthly e-newsletter, I encourage you to visit my website at www.nye.house.gov.

Apparently he hasn't done much thought about this, because anyone with an  inkling of how things work in this regard, he'd know the ruling sets a precedent that any and all attempts to defend marriage are "unconstitutional" including federal law, and now homosexualist activists have a legal precedent to argue for the recognition of homosexual "marriage".

Yes, the ruling is a big deal, because now any defense of marriage is out.

Mr. Nye, please, for the good of society, oppose this ruling on it's face and fight for marriage in Congress, resist any attempt to redefine marriage.

Pax Christi.

Costa Rica Denies the People their Rights

Via LSN comes this lates outrage:

SAN JOSÉ, August 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Costa Rica's Constitutional Court, the nation's highest tribunal, has ruled that citizens cannot vote on the issue of homosexual "civil unions" because "people who have relations with the same sex are a disadvantaged group that is the object of discrimination."
Rejecting the arguments of pro-family groups and the nation's Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the court voted 5-2 to prohibit such a vote, claiming that it would "deepen and aggravate discrimination" against homosexuals.
The Court's decision cancels a referendum on the matter previously scheduled for December, for which over 150,000 signatures were gathered in recent months.  The referendum was called in response to proposed legislation to create "civil unions" for homosexual couples, which would give them the same rights normally reserved for married couples.
The bill, which is known as Legal Project 16390 and not yet been subject to a final vote, has been condemned by the Costa Rican Catholic bishops' conference, whose flock includes the vast majority of Costa Ricans.
Denouncing the legislation in September of last year, the Costa Rican bishops wrote that "we are facing a bill that intends in practice to equalize" homosexual unions, which, "is manifestly against articles 51 and 52 of the Constitution, in which matrimony is the essential base of the family, and has the right to the special protection of the government.  The equalization of unions of people of the same sex with matrimony is therefore unconstitutional."

This is outrageous.  Since when did the people not have the right to vote on decisions that affect their daily lives?  Well, the homosexual lobby has gotten their wish; another bunch of judges rules that their disordered condition makes them a protected class.

Please pray for Costa Rica.

Pro-homosexual "marriage" blogger throws a nutty

http://themoderatevoice.com/82420/a-case-for-religious-history-classes/

So, the whole institution of marriage is an invention of the Catholic Church as a tool to defend itself from the Protestant Reformation?  That would be news to just about every single married couple in the history of the world, and not just Christians.

Ignorance of history serves no one, and certainly not this poor soul.

ALERT: Federal Judge Overturns Proposition 8

Courtesy of MSNBC, to my shock:

SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage.

In a landmark case that could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. He said that "moral disapproval" alone is not a basis to deny rights to gays and lesbians.
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion.
His ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.
Outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco, a cheer went up among a group of about 70 same-sex marriage supporters carrying small U.S. flags, as a large rainbow-striped flag — the symbol of the gay rights movement — waved overhead.
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. praised the decision. "In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it: Proposition 8 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry, without a sufficient governmental interest."
Opponents of same-sex marriage derided the ruling.                                                                      
South Carolina Republican Sen. James Demint called the decision "another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage." 
"Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels," Demint said.
Prop 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.
Both sides previously said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.
The ruling puts Walker at the forefront of the gay marriage debate. The longtime federal judge was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
The verdict was the second in a federal gay marriage case to come down in recent weeks. A federal judge in Massachusetts decided last month the state's legally married gay couples had been wrongly denied the federal financial benefits of marriage because of a law preventing the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.
The plaintiffs in the California case presented 18 witnesses. Academic experts testified about topics ranging from the fitness of gay parents and religious views on homosexuality to the historical meaning of marriage and the political influence of the gay rights movement.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson delivered the closing argument for opponents of the ban. He told Judge Walker that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples.
Olson teamed up with David Boies to argue the case, bringing together the two litigators best known for representing George W. Bush and Al Gore in the disputed 2000 election.
Defense lawyers called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side. The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.
Former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, who represented the religious and conservative groups that sponsored the ban, said cultures around the world, previous courts and Congress all accepted the "common sense belief that children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father."

In an unusual move, the original defendants, Brown, the state attorney general, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.
That left the work of defending the law to Protect Marriage, the group that successfully sponsored the ballot measure that passed with 52 percent of the vote after the most expensive political campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.
Currently, same-sex couples can only legally wed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

This is an outrage.  The citizens of California had every right to amend their Constitution, and they had a moral duty to defend God's plan for marriage.  And now, this black-robed tyrant thinks he can override this right by imposing this ruling.

An abuse of federal power?  You bet it is.  Our founders had no intention of the federal judiciary having the authority to overturn an amendment to a state constitution.  Yet, here we are!  As if we needed another excuse to throw out the bums in 2010 and 2012. 

I urge everyone to write to the Congressional representatives and urge them to support an appeal of this abominable ruling.  I also urge everyone to pray for those who challenged Proposition 8 and to pray for our nation to regain its moral compass.  It's time to stand up and say we're not going to take it anymore.

To the people of CA, you will be in my prayers and may God bless your state abundantly.  Peace.

                                                             

ACIVAB Kudos: Father Rodriguez Reminds Catholics of their Duties as Catholics

Courtesy of CNA:

El Paso, Texas, Aug 3, 2010 / 06:01 am (CNA).- Warning of the possibility of a corrupt democracy, Texas priest Fr. Michael Rodriguez has written that Catholics have the “absolute duty” to oppose abortion and all government attempts to legalize same-sex unions.
The parish priest of El Paso’s San Juan Bautista Catholic Church, Fr. Rodriguez published a short essay in the Sunday El Paso Times urging all Catholics to take the teachings of the Catholic Church to heart.
Every Catholic, out of “fidelity to charity and truth,” must oppose “the murder of unborn babies” and the legalization of homosexual unions, he said.
“Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin, and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church,” the priest wrote. Those Catholics who neglect actively to oppose the “homosexual agenda” on the grounds of equal rights and tolerance would be guilty of “a most grievous sin of omission.”
Fr. Rodriguez quoted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) November 2009 pastoral letter on marriage, noting it was endorsed by the Bishop of El Paso Armando X. Ochoa. That document said the idea that people of the same-sex can “marry” is “one of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture” and is an attempt to “redefine” marriage and the family.
This harms both the intrinsic dignity of every person and the common good of society, the bishops said, adding that justice requires denying legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not “marital.”
Fr. Rodriguez urged Catholics to treat homosexuals with “love, understanding and respect” without forgetting that genuine love requires seeking the salvation of souls.
“Homosexual acts lead to the damnation of souls,” the priest warned.
Criticizing several El Paso Times letter writers who claimed that in a democracy the majority decide between what is right and wrong, he said this logic is “not only false” but “ludicrous.” Majority decisions have no bearing on an actions’ intrinsic morality, he explained.
This morality, established by God, can be known through reason, he said. As an example of intrinsic morality, the priest noted that if a majority voted to allow rape this could never make rape morally right.
“There is such a thing as a corrupt democracy, you know!” commented Fr. Rodriguez. “Frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous consequences.”

A big ACIVB kudos to Fr. Rodriguez.  In a world where namby-pamby homilies from priests are the norm, it's refreshing to see a priest who preaches the truth about abortion and homosexual "marriage".  In a day and age where 54% of Catholics voted for Obama despite his anti-life agenda and his beholding to the homosexual agenda, we need more priests like this one.  Our hats (and for any priestly readers of this blog, birettas ;) ) are off to him.

Pax Christi.

More Judicial Activism: Judge Rules DOMA "Unconstitutional"

From LSN:

BOSTON, MA, July 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A federal judge in Boston has ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which enshrines into law the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.
Judge Joseph Tauro claimed in a ruling Thursday that DOMA violates the right of homosexual couples to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.
"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," wrote the judge.
"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."
The ruling, although not entirely without precedent, marks the first time a federal judge has attacked the law in a ruling that holds significant legal weight. In February 2009, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also declared DOMA unconstitutional, but did so in a ruling regarding an internal judiciary dispute. Such a ruling does not carry the weight of precedent, as would a decision on a lawsuit.
Two suits had been placed before the court challenging DOMA, one brought by Boston's Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the second by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
In the ruling pertaining to both suits, Justice Tauro wrote that “the government's argument assumes that Congress has some interest in a uniform definition of marriage for purposes of determining federal rights, benefits, and privileges. There is no such interest."
The U.S. Justice Department has so far declined to comment on the ruling, saying that the decision is being reviewed.
Lisa Barstow, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Family Institute, said that while her organization was "really distressed" over the decision, the future of DOMA would rely heavily on how Obama's Justice Department (DOJ) chooses to respond.
"We expect that [the DOJ] will appeal; whether they will appeal with gusto is what we are looking at next," Barstow told LifeSiteNews.com. Barstow said that there "are a number of holes" in the judge's decision that could easily be overturned if the DOJ chooses "to appeal this in a meaningful way."
Attorney General Coakley, who made headlines earlier this year as the U.S. Senate candidate unexpectedly edged out by Republican Scott Brown, applauded the ruling Thursday. She called the decision "an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts." Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex "marriage."
The attorney general's suit had attacked DOMA by claiming it violated the Constitution by interfering with state authority, in addition to violating the equal-protection clause.
“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”
Posting on Twitter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the ruling "great news!"
The ruling, if upheld by an appeals court, has the potential for a wide-reaching impact on other present and future same-sex "marriage" cases across the country, including the ongoing case against California's Proposition 8. If upheld by the Supreme Court, the case could become the "Roe v. Wade" of the marriage battle by creating a "right" to same-sex "marriage," nullifying the will of dozens of states that had approved amendments and laws protecting marriage.
Massachusetts Family Institute president Kris Mineau called the decision “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator."
The question of same-sex "marriage,” when put to citizens, has failed every single time. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states," said Mineau in a statement, adding that he was "confident" the Supreme Court would uphold the law.
However, DOMA is likely to face a tough battle in the Supreme Court, especially in light of the nomination of Elena Kagan to the court. Should Kagan be confirmed to the highest court of the land, she would bring another certain vote in favor of striking down the law, as she has already come out strongly in favor of the homosexualist agenda.
In addition, pro-family leaders have pointed to a controversial brief authored under Kagan as U.S. Secretary General, in which the legal defense for the law was gutted by rejecting the ideological basis for maintaining marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, the brief acknowledged that the Obama administration considers DOMA "discriminatory, and supports its repeal," before arguing that the plaintiff in the case lacked standing.
Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage noted in May that the brief "explicitly and gratuitously rejected the key legal defense" for DOMA: "that such unions uniquely protect children by encouraging responsible procreation." Following Thursday's ruling, Brown lamented that, thanks to Kagan's brief, Obama's justice department has already "deliberately sabotaged this case."
"With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996.  A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States," said Brown.
 
Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM, was more optimistic, in light of the judge's argument: she noted that "the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy." "Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court," she said.
Mathew Staver of Liberty Council also said that he was "confident" the ruling would be reversed on appeal.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for our nation and our judges.

This ruling highlights all more clearly the need for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, as God ordained it and as it always has been!  I ask everyone reading this to contact their representatives and senators and say that you want a amendment to the Constitution to protect marriage. 

We can't let liberal activists and judges turn marriage on its head.  We must act now.

WHOA! OH YES, HE WENT THERE!!! 8)

Courtesy of WDTPRS

Our Holy Father has taken a strong stance against homosexual "marriage" and denounced it in no uncertain terms.  Heck, he described it as "insidious and dangerous".

Thank you, Your Holiness.  You will be in my prayers for speaking the truth so forcefully.

Hat's off to Argentina

BUENOS AIRES, March 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An Argentinan judge has nullified the "marriage" recently contracted between two homosexuals in the city of Buenos Aires, and has ordered them to return all documents related to the union.

Judge Felix Igarzabal, a national judge, reversed a previous decision by a Buenos Aires judge permitting the "marriage" between Damian Bernath, 39, and Jorge Salazar Capon, 43, in late February.

Igarzabal based his decision on article 172 of Argentina's national civil code, which states that the "complete and free consent expressed personally by a man and a woman before the authority that is competent to celebrate it, is indispensable for the existence of matrimony."

And encouraging sign, despite the increasingly leftward tilt of many Latin American countries.  Our own judges could take a lesson from this and take a stand for God's plan for marriage (one man, one woman).