Agudah Praises Andrew Cuomo's "Outstanding Leadership Abilities"

Statement from Agudath Israel of America Upon the Passing of Governor Mario Cuomo

Agudath Israel of America notes with sadness the passing of Governor Mario Cuomo. Throughout his tenure as Governor of the State of New York, Mario Cuomo displayed great friendship to the Jewish community, and played a leadership role in addressing many issues of Jewish concern. Governor Cuomo enjoyed a close working relationship, and an especially warm personal relationship, with the late president of Agudath Israel, Rabbi Moshe Sherer. Rabbi Sherer befriended Mario Cuomo even before Mr. Cuomo was elected to public office, and the bonds of friendship grew only stronger with the passing years. Their relationship translated into a number of tangible benefits for the Orthodox Jewish community as a whole and for needy members of the community as individuals. Governor Cuomo had the historic distinction of being the only high ranking American elected official ever to meet with Agudath Israel's Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah (Council of Torah Sages). His deep respect for the senior rabbis, and his willingness to engage them in dialogue on major issues of public policy, set him apart from his contemporaries in the political world. Agudath Israel extends its deep sympathies and sincere condolences to the Cuomo family, including Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has clearly inherited many of his father's outstanding leadership abilities. May Mario Cuomo's exceptional human qualities continue to serve as a source of inspiration for the family, and for all who aspire to public service in the most noble sense of the term. (Aguda press release)

"Leadership ability" of twisting arms into passing the most evil legislation in NY history
Was there even a reason to mention Andrew in this piece?

PS: I agree that Andrew did "inherit" much from his father, like his unrelenting push for the evil of liberalism despite the obstacles like Mario did with abortion, and capital punishment.

Why Shmuel Lefkowitz Endorsed Steven Cymbrowitz Over A Orthodox Jew Who Would Have Sponsored A Bill To Repeal Same Sex "Marriage"

 לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב בית ה' קלהיך לכל נדר, כי תועבת ה' קלהיך גם שניהם

You shall not bring a prostitute's fee or the price of a dog, to the House of the Lord, your God, for any vow, because both of them are an abomination to the Lord, your God

As We know Agudas Yisroel's chief lobbyist endorsed Steven Cymbrowitz (who for the most part has a pro homosexuality record) over Ben Akselrod who promised to sponsor a bill to repeal same sex "marriage"

(L-R) Leon Goldenberg, Steven Cymbrowitz, Shmuel Lefkowitz

Unfortunately Lefkowitz and others like him (Goldenberg, Sam Sutton etc.) (more in a future post) led Ben Akselrod to lose the Orthodox Vote and thus the election.

Of course Shmuel Lefkowitz wouldn't care about the fact that Cymbrowitz has a pro gay record and Ben Akselrod would have fought it because he didn't even try to fight the "marriage" bill in the first place.



In an article that apeared 10 days before the "marriage" bill passed, and much of the Jewish community was very worried that this would pass Shmuel Lefkowitz admitted he was not fighting the "marriage" bill

Factions of New York’s Orthodox Jewry have also been monitoring the legislative jostling closely. On May 23, six organizations issued a joint position statement exhorting lawmakers to uphold traditional marriage. Among the signatories was Agudath Israel of America, an umbrella organization for ultra-Orthodox groups, both Hasidic and non-Hasidic, who share a “singular belief in the Torah as the primary source of their religious values,” according to "Rabbi" Shmuel Lefkowitz, its chief officer for governmental affairs.

“On the issue of legalizing same-sex "marriage",” the statement reads,

“the Orthodox Jewish world speaks with one voice, loud and clear: We oppose the redefinition of the bedrock relationship of the human family. The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.”

Lefkowitz believes that same-sex "marriage" lacks the requisite momentum for passage. “If I believed the votes were there, I’d put more effort into it,” he says. “I believe this is under control.”

(religiondispatches)

Andrew Cuomo Wants To Make New York Orthodox-Judenrein

Andrew Cuomo's New York

• You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.
  … You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.
  If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.”

  Andrew Cuomo's statement

Cuomo wants to add NY to this list

Forget Iran; John Kerry Attacks Nigeria Ban On Gay Groups And "Marriage"

21. And if you treat Me as happenstance, and you do not wish to listen to Me, I will add seven punishments corresponding to your sins:		כא. וְאִם תֵּלְכוּ עִמִּי קֶרִי וְלֹא תֹאבוּ לִשְׁמֹעַ לִי וְיָסַפְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם מַכָּה שֶׁבַע כְּחַטֹּאתֵיכֶם:
22. I will incite the wild beasts of the field against you, and they will bereave you, utterly destroy your livestock and diminish you, and your roads will become desolate.		כב. וְהִשְׁלַחְתִּי בָכֶם אֶת חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְשִׁכְּלָה אֶתְכֶם וְהִכְרִיתָה אֶת בְּהֶמְתְּכֶם וְהִמְעִיטָה אֶתְכֶם וְנָשַׁמּוּ דַּרְכֵיכֶם:
23. And if, through these, you will still not be chastised [to return] to Me, and if you [continue to] treat Me happenstance,		כג. וְאִם בְּאֵלֶּה לֹא תִוָּסְרוּ לִי וַהֲלַכְתֶּם עִמִּי קֶרִי:
24. Then I too, will treat you as happenstance. I will again add seven punishments for your sins:		כד. וְהָלַכְתִּי אַף אֲנִי עִמָּכֶם בְּקֶרִי וְהִכֵּיתִי אֶתְכֶם גַּם אָנִי שֶׁבַע עַל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם:
25. I will bring upon you an army that avenges the avenging of a covenant, and you will gather into your cities. I will incite the plague in your midst, and you will be delivered into the enemy's hands,		כה. וְהֵבֵאתִי עֲלֵיכֶם חֶרֶב נֹקֶמֶת נְקַם בְּרִית וְנֶאֱסַפְתֶּם אֶל עָרֵיכֶם וְשִׁלַּחְתִּי דֶבֶר בְּתוֹכְכֶם וְנִתַּתֶּם בְּיַד אוֹיֵב:
26. when I break for you the staff of bread, and ten women will bake your bread in one oven, and they will bring back your bread by weight, and you will eat, yet not be satisfied.		כו. בְּשִׁבְרִי לָכֶם מַטֵּה לֶחֶם וְאָפוּ עֶשֶׂר נָשִׁים לַחְמְכֶם בְּתַנּוּר אֶחָד וְהֵשִׁיבוּ לַחְמְכֶם בַּמִּשְׁקָל וַאֲכַלְתֶּם וְלֹא תִשְׂבָּעוּ:
27. And if, despite this, you still do not listen to Me, still treating Me as happenstance,		כז. וְאִם בְּזֹאת לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ לִי וַהֲלַכְתֶּם עִמִּי בְּקֶרִי:
28. I will treat you with a fury of happenstance, adding again seven [chastisements] for your sins:		כח. וְהָלַכְתִּי עִמָּכֶם בַּחֲמַת קֶרִי וְיִסַּרְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אַף אָנִי שֶׁבַע עַל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם:

 

 Secretary Kerry on U.S. Deep Concern with Nigeria’s Enactment of the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act

Secretary of State John Kerry

2014-01-13

The United States is deeply "concerned" by Nigeria’s enactment of the Same Sex "Marriage Prohibition" Act.

Beyond even prohibiting same sex marriage, this law dangerously restricts freedom of assembly, association, and expression for all Nigerians.

Moreover, it is inconsistent with Nigeria’s international legal obligations and "undermines" the democratic reforms and human rights protections enshrined in its 1999 Constitution.

People everywhere deserve to live in freedom and equality. No one should face violence or discrimination for who they are or who they love.

We join with those in Nigeria who appeal for the protection of their fellow citizens’ fundamental "freedoms" and universal "human rights".
(State Department)

Pew Globe

ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Nigeria's president has signed a law that bans same-sex "marriage" and criminalizes homosexual (these are the vehicles that help them organize "gay rights" in other countries) associations , societies and meetings, with penalties of up to 14 years in jail.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the Same Sex "Marriage" Prohibition Act on Monday. It was signed by President Goodluck Jonathan and dated Jan. 7.

It was unclear why the law's passage has been shrouded in secrecy. The copy obtained from the House of Representatives in Abuja, the capital, showed it was signed by those lawmakers and senators on Dec. 17, but no announcement was made.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday the United States was "deeply concerned" by a law that "dangerously restricts freedom of assembly, association, and expression for all Nigerians."

It is now a crime to have a meeting of gays, or to operate or go to a gay club, society or organization.

The new law says, "A person who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies or organizations, or directly or indirectly makes public show of same-sex amorous relationship in Nigeria, commits an offense and is liable on conviction to a term of 10 years."

Anyone convicted of entering into a same-sex "marriage" contract or civil union faces up to 14 years' imprisonment, it says.

Nigeria already has a law inherited from British colonizers that makes homosexual sex illegal in the West African nation so did Israel but unfortunately Israel got rid of that law in 1988 .

"If that bill passes, it will be illegal for us to even be holding this conversation," Olumide Makanjuola, executive director of the Initiative For "Equality" in Nigeria, told AP.

Those who will suffer most under the law are poor, gay Nigerians, she said. Many rich ones already have left the country, or say they will fly elsewhere to have sex, she said.
(AP) highlights our additions

Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, characterized the law as a "big setback for human rights for all Nigerians."

According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), the bill passed by the Senate at the end of last year introduces a 14-year prison sentence for people who are convicted of entering into a same-sex "marriage" or "civil union".

It also reportedly makes it an offense to administer, witness or help at a same-sex "marriage" ceremony.

NAN said the law also forbids people from running gay clubs, societies, processions or meetings in Nigeria. The punishment for such acts is 10 years in prison, it said.

And the law even states that "marriages" or civil unions from outside the country will be void inside the country, according to NAN.

Last month, Uganda's parliament passed "controversial" legislation that would make some gay acts punishable by life in prison.

For the bill to become law, it would need the signature of that county's president, who has 30 days to make a decision.
 

(CNN)

NOI Poll on how Nigerians see the new bill against homosexual "marriage"

The U.K. and some other governments in Western Europe have previously threatened to pull aid to countries that pass laws persecuting homosexuals, something that has scared other African countries, such as Uganda, into stalling their own legislation.

Last year, polls released by Nigerian polling group NOI found 92% of Nigerians supported the proposed Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act. Just 1% of those polled strongly opposed the law. Another survey from Pew Research last year found 98% of Nigerians didn't think homosexuality should be accepted by society — the highest percentage of any country surveyed. These numbers are truly exceptional. Even in Russia, a country that became notorious for its anti-gay laws last year, approval ratings above 90% would be extraordinary.

(businessinsider)

Obamacare And The Gay Agenda

from the White House's Website

Why No Jew Should Vote For Joe Lhota, vote For Erick Salgado On The School Choice Line

If You Vote For Joe Lhota You telling the world that you don't care about same gender "marriage", abortion on demand, drugs etc.  Future candidates will take note and ignore these issues in the future (and future social issues) .  We need to send a message nationally that it doesn't pay to be a Socially Liberal Republican.  If you want to make a Kiddush Hashem, not make a Chillul Hashem, be a or lagoyim and a part of mamleches kohanim vegoy kadosh vote for Erick Salgado (the ONLY mayor candidate who believes in morality) On The School Choice Line!


If done by enough people it could have national implication and help stem the tide of Republicans becoming liberal Democrats when it comes to morality!

Cory Booker Implies That Not Allowing Same Gender "Marriage" Is Like Communism

Remember to VOTE AGAINST Cory Booker this Wendsday, for senate!

Daniel Squadron: On Why Orthodox Jews Should Vote For Him

Daniel Squadron's latest flier.

בהסכמת "הרעבנים" "ועסקנים" דוויליאמסברג

check list on why NOT to vote for Daniel Squadron
 ✓has 100% approval rating by the biggest abortion on demand orginazation
✓one of the major pushers of same gender "marriage"
✓the leading sponsor of genda (This could force sefariem stores to hire men with skirts, and would allow men in to woman's bathrooms)
✓wants to make NY have more abortions (41% is to low)
✓has the endorsement of 3 leading gay orginazations

"Orthodox" David Greenfield Votes For Same Gender "Marriage" Resolution!

Bill that David Greenfield Voted for                                             

               On April 9th David Greenfield voted for a resolution to pass a immigration reform bill that recognizes same gender relationships as "families". 


Objectionable part of the Resolution David Greenfield voted for

Whereas, The narrow definition of "marriage" and "spouse" under current law prohibits the recognition of same-sex couples and therefore prevents U.S. citizens from sponsoring their immigrant partners for legal immigration status, leading to the needless disruption of families and the agonizing choice for many U.S. citizens to leave either their partner or their country 

the vote passed by a voice vote, anyone in the City Council who didn't vote for the bill would be listed by name here

Ami Magazine Supports Pro Same-Gender "Marriage" Mayoral Candidate Jack Hidary

Ami Magazine (page 57)

 

Ami Magazine (page 59)

Isn't The Ami Magazine forgetting something?

 

Psak from rabbaniem on Turner

Gay Terrorists To Sue Church Of England For Refusing to Preform Same Gender "Marriage"

Barrie And Tony YMS

Church of England Next Could be a Rav to be Sued for Refusing to Perform Same-Sex "Marriages", Just a Month After Prime Minister Promised Protection

By Katherine Weber, Christian Post Reporter

August 2, 2013|4:54 pm

A gay "couple" in Great Britain has announced plans to pursue legal action against the Church of England for refusing to perform same-sex "marriage" ceremonies, less than one month after the country officially legalized gay "marriage", but explicitly excluded the Church from being forced to conduct the ceremonies as they go against biblical teachings.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his partner, Tony, have been considered by many in Great Britain to be the "poster couple" for same-sex "marriage" legalization, as they became the first gay "parents" in 1999 through surrogacy, and have since had five other children through surrogacy. The "couple" had a civil partnership ceremony in 2006, and own a surrogate center in Chandlers Quay, Maldon.

The gay "marriage" legislation approved in Great Britain earlier this year, known as the "Marriage" (Same Sex "Couples") Act 2013, included a "quadruple lock" meant to protect the Church of England and other religious institutions from being forced to perform same-sex "marriages" against their faith. Under the current law, churches may "opt-in" to perform same-sex "marriages", but they cannot be forced to conduct ceremonies.

Despite that highly-publicized safeguard being included in the legislation, many critics believed that gay activists would ignore that exclusion and continue to push for churches to be forced to participate in gay "marriage" ceremonies against their will. Now just weeks after the legislation was passed, it appears those fears were well-founded; Drewitt-Barlow and his partner argue that they wish to "test" this protection in court. The "couple" have claimed that they are practicing Christians and they want their children to see them wed in a church ceremony.

"We are happy for gay "marriage" to be recognized – in that sense it is a big step. But it is actually a small step because it is something we still cannot actually do," Drewitt-Barlow told the Essex Chronicle in a recent interview, adding he and his partner "need to convince the church that it is the right thing for our community for them to recognize as practicing Christians."

"It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don't think it is going to happen straight away," Drewitt-Barlow continued, adding "as much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want."

The "couple" told Gay Star News that they have been speaking to the legal counsel at Cannon Law experience, which believes the "couple" may in fact have a case.

Additionally, the "couple" contends that some of the "biggest critics" of their decision to sue the Church of England have been members of the gay community, who have reportedly told the "couple" that they "should be grateful for what we have and telling us we should not feel we are representing the gay community as a whole." The "couple" argues, however, that this is a personal decision and they are not doing it on behalf of the same-sex community. most of the gays who objected only did so based on tactics (moving to fast and thus being used as helping the opposition) not in principle

When introducing the "quadruple lock" plan for same-sex "marriage" in December, England's culture secretary Maria Miller "assured" the Church of England, the Catholic Church, and other religious groups that the new law would protect them from being forced to perform same-sex ceremonies. The law bans the Church of England and Church in Wales from performing same-sex "marriages", and requires other religious organizations to "opt-in" in order to perform gay wedding ceremonies.

However, Justice Minister Crispin Blunt admitted in June 2012 that the Same-Sex "Couples" Act's protection of churches could possibly be challenged in court.

"We're seeking to protect, indeed, proscribe religious organizations from offering gay "marriage"," Blunt, who is openly gay, said in June 2012.

"That may be problematic legally, but the proposal the Government are putting forward is that "marriage" should be "equal" in the eyes of the state whether it's between a same-sex "couple" or between a man and a woman. We'll have to see what happens with that," Blunt added.

The Church of England and the Catholic Church both spoke out at the time, arguing that they were suspicious over whether the promised safeguards granted to religious groups would hold up in courts, and they feared that churches may eventually be forced to perform same-sex "marriage" unions to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Others argued such a development would force churches to stop performing all marriages as they would not be permitted by church rules to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Colin Hart, director for the Coalition for Marriage, a pro-biblical marriage advocacy group, told the Daily Mail that the Church of England's previous concerns regarding their protection are warranted.

"The ink's not even dry on the Bill and churches are already facing litigation. We warned Mr. Cameron this would happen, we told him he was making promises that he couldn't possibly keep," Hart said. "He didn't listen. He didn't care. He's the one who has created this mess."
"Mr. Cameron's chickens are coming home to roost and it will be ordinary people with a religious belief who yet again fall victim to the totalitarian forces of political correctness," Hart continued.

"We now face the real prospect of churches having to choose between stopping conducting weddings, or vicars, and priests defying the law and finding themselves languishing in the dock," Hart added.

The "Marriage" (Same Sex "Couples") Act 2013 cleared parliament earlier in July and was officially signed into law by "Queen" Elizabeth II a decedent of Queen Isabella YMS on July 17. The first same-sex weddings are expected to commence in summer 2014.

(Christian Post) highlights mine

The CofE is also protected by its own internal canon laws, which are part of the law of land, which say marriages must be between a man and a woman.

However a succession of past court cases have resulted in defeats for Christians who were in disputes over equality laws, and in particular courts have always found in favor of gays who have challenged Christians.

In recent years notable cases have ended in the sacking of a town hall registrar who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies, the sack for a Relate counselor who said he would not give sex advice to gay couples, and defeat for a couple who declined to let a room in their hotel to a gay couple on the grounds that they were unmarried.

Colin Hart, of the Coalition for Marriage said: 'The ink's not even dry on the Bill and churches are already facing litigation. We warned Mr Cameron this would happen, we told him he was making promises that he couldn't possibly keep.

(dailymail)

New Poll Shows Majority Of Country Is In Favor Of Religious Persecution In The Name Of Gay "Rights"

The poll was taken by the First Amendment Center.

DiNapoli Uses Our States Pension To Bully Companies To Accept Toevah "Marriage"

Thomas Dinapoli is the one with out the hat

ALBANY — State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli is using the power of the state’s $160 billion pension system to urge President Obama to order federal agencies and programs around the country to recognize gay "marriages" performed in New York.

DiNapoli’s idea is to adopt a “place of celebration” standard in federal government, meaning gay "marriages" that take place in New York would be recognized even in states that do not permit them. It could be a big push in DiNapoli’s effort to get major companies that do business with the state-pension fund to adopt anti-"discrimination" measures when providing benefits for gay " couples".

The US Supreme Court last month struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a ruling that muddled the rights of gay "couples" married in New York who move to or work in states where gay "marriage" isn’t legal.

DiNapoli is the sole trustee of the state’s pension fund and has used it as leverage to persuade companies he invests in to bolster environmental protections, combat terrorism and disclose campaign donations. He argues recognizing gay "marriages" is just good business.
(AP)

Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Refuses To Defend Law Against Same Gender "Marriage"

Kathleen Kane who refuses to do her job in defending the state of Pennsylvania's laws

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Pennsylvania's elected attorney general said Thursday that she will not defend a 17-year-old state law effectively banning same-sex "marriage" from a legal challenge in federal court, meaning the task will be left up to Gov. Tom Corbett.

In a brief statement to reporters and a small crowd of supporters at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Attorney General Kathleen Kane said that she cannot "ethically" defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's marriage law and that she believes it to be "unconstitutional".

"Today, the attorney general chooses to protect all those without high-priced lawyers, all those who suffer "discrimination" and "inequality", those thousands of families who have been denied of the "dignity" and "respect" that the constitution protects and guarantees in "marriage equality"," Kane said. "Today we represent everyone who does not have representation."

Kane, a Democrat who supports same-sex "marriage", said the state and U.S. Constitution each stress equal protection under the law. The job of defending the law now falls to Corbett, a Republican who opposes same-sex "marriage".

He and Kane were both named in a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday seeking to legalize same-sex "marriage" in Pennsylvania and require the state to recognize the "marriages" of same-sex couples who wed in other jurisdictions.

Corbett has not said whether he will fight the lawsuit, but his general counsel, James Schultz, attacked Kane in a statement.

"We are surprised that the attorney general, contrary to her constitutional duty ... has decided not to defend a Pennsylvania statute lawfully enacted by the General Assembly, merely because of her personal beliefs," Schultz said.

Longtime lawyers for the state Legislature said they could not think of another time when an attorney general refused to defend a state law because they questioned its constitutionality. Meanwhile, House Speaker Sam Smith, R-Jefferson, and 23 other House Republicans issued a letter to Kane, saying they were troubled by her decision and urged her to reconsider. Still, Senate Republican leaders were quiet and no one issued an immediate threat to seek a court order forcing Kane to defend the lawsuit.

Under Pennsylvania law, it is the attorney general's duty to defend the constitutionality of state laws. But the law also says the attorney general may allow lawyers for the governor's office or executive-branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state's best interests.

Kane argued in a separate statement that professional conduct rules make it an "ethical" obligation to withdraw from a case in which a lawyer has a fundamental disagreement with the client.

The Office of General Counsel, which is under the governor, is accustomed to handling the state's legal affairs and routinely hires outside lawyers to either defend state laws or prosecute lawsuits.

For instance, the office is helping in the defense of Pennsylvania's year-old voter identification law and it handled Corbett's anti-trust lawsuit, now thrown out of federal court, seeking to undo the NCAA sanctions against Penn State relating to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

Pennsylvania is the only northeastern state that does not allow same-sex "marriage" or "civil unions", and Kane's stance is unlikely to change opinions in a Republican-controlled Legislature where resolutions to insert a constitutional ban on same-sex "marriages" have made more progress in recent years than bills to legalize them.

The state Republican and Democratic parties quickly tangled over Kane's position. GOP chairman Rob Gleason attacked Kane as "blatantly politicizing" the attorney general's office, while Democratic Party chairman Jim Burn applauded her "courageous and firm stand against a law with little merit."

Trends in Pennsylvania show increasing support for same-sex "marriage". A January poll by Quinnipiac University  of 1,221 registered voters found 47 percent support it and 43 percent oppose it, with voters ages 18 to 34 supporting it, 68 percent to 25 percent.

Lawyers in the case believe it is ultimately bound for the U.S. Supreme Court, probably along with similar cases in other states, and could force the high court to rule on the core question of whether it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex "couples" the "right" to "marry".

It was not, however, prompted by the high court's pair of decisions three weeks ago that delivered two victories for same-sex "marriage" supporters.

Pennsylvania's 1996 state law defines marriage as a civil contract in which a man and a woman take each other as husband and wife. The state also does not allow civil unions or recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states where it is legal.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is co-counsel in the lawsuit, welcomed the decision.

"This is a huge boost," said Pennsylvania staff attorney Mary Catherine Roper. "You've got the chief law enforcement officer of the commonwealth saying, 'You're right. This is not legal.' I think it's a sign that things are changing."

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are a "widow" of a woman who died in May after they were legally "married" in Massachusetts, 10 "couples" and one of the "couples"' two teenage "daughters". The group includes four "couples" who were legally married in other states. Same-sex "marriage" is legal or soon will be in 13 states.

ACLU Sues Pennsylvania To Allow Same Sex "Marriage"

Vic Walczak, legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Pennsylvania, on Tuesday at the State Capitol.

The Supreme Court returned the battle over same-sex "marriage" to the states two weeks ago, and Deb and Susan Whitewood are among the first to pick up the fight. 

A "couple" for 22 years with two teenage "daughters", the Whitewoods filed suit on Tuesday to overturn Pennsylvania’s ban on gay "marriage", one of the first of an expected outpouring of cases around the country to cite the court’s majority opinion that same-sex "couples" are "denied a “status of immense import” and their children deprived of “the integrity and closeness of their own family.” "

The suit, carefully assembled by the American Civil Liberties Union, was filed in Federal District Court in Harrisburg with the aim of adding Pennsylvania to the column of states permitting same-sex "marriage", currently 13 plus the District of Columbia. The 23 plaintiffs come from many "walks of life", including a doctor, college professors, a truck driver, a Vietnam veteran and a woman who lost her partner of 29 years. 

“What we’re looking for is the validation from the legal system that we are equal in our "marriage" as anyone else,” said Susan Whitewood, 49, in an interview before a planned news conference to announce the suit at the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg. it's about acceptance of evil, not rights

The legalization of same-sex "marriage" has primarily come through the political process and we could have stopped it in NY if we all would have all followed the path of Torah and not $$$, with lawmakers and voters approving it in six states in just the past year. But earlier victories were achieved through state courts, in states including Massachusetts and Iowa. The A.C.L.U. acknowledged that it was bringing suit in Pennsylvania because overturning the state’s gay marriage ban in the Republican-controlled legislature is a near-term impossibility. the gay terrorists use any means available to them

Pennsylvania’s law defines marriage as between a man and a woman — similar to the federal law struck down by the Supreme Court — and it denies recognition to same-sex "marriages" legally performed elsewhere. 

Gay-marriage opponents say using the courts undermines the will of the voters. Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which opposes same-sex marriage, said that in 1996 when the state passed its law, fewer than 25 out of some 240 legislators opposed it. “The fact the A.C.L.U. is turning to the courts to try to redefine marriage takes it out of the hands of the people,” he said. 

The A.C.L.U. plans to file suit soon in two other states, Virginia and North Carolina. In Michigan, a federal judge blocked a state law denying domestic partner benefits to public employees, citing the Supreme Court rulings. And on Wednesday the A.C.L.U. and Lambda Legal plan to seek summary judgment in Illinois in two year-old gay marriage cases. 

“You’ll have these things filed all over the place,” said Frank Schubert, political director of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage. 

James Esseks, national director of the LGBT Project at the A.C.L.U., agreed. “No question this issue will get back to U.S. Supreme Court over the next several years,” he said. 

At the heart of many of the cases is the issue the Supreme Court ducked in one of its two recent rulings, a narrow decision on a California case: If a state prohibits same-sex couples from marrying, does it trample the guarantee of equal protection in the United States Constitution? which is ludicrous because every single person who voted for the 14 amendment would have been against same gender "marriage"

Supporters believe that enlarging the map of states that allow same-sex marriage will ultimately influence the Supreme Court when it next takes up the issue of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as it is expected to do in the next few years. Activists are pressing legislatures in three more states that appear ready to pass measures legalizing same-sex marriage: New Jersey, Hawaii and Illinois. which is why we (everyone) need to knock out every single state legislator in NJ that we (the Jewish community) could who voted for same gender "marriage" like seantors Paul Sarlo (Passaic), and Raymond Lesniak (Elizabeth), we may possibly even be able to knock out the sponsor of the bill Loretta Weinberg (Englewood, Fort Lee, Teaneck, Tenafly ) 

“We think what the map of the country looks like is going to make a big difference to how the issues in the case feel to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Esseks said. “Will we have the 13 states plus D.C., or will we be at 20 or more?” 

Opponents are fighting back under the same logic. They see an opportunity to add Indiana to the 29 states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. no we're not, if we were Dov Hikind and Simcha Felder would sponsor a bill to ban same gender "marriage" in NY. Indiana already ban same gender "marriage"a constitutional amendment to strengthen the ban it in Indiana is not the same as winning back a state for morality.

“Our challenge is to let the court see they’re not going to get away with this without a massive public revolt,” Mr. Schubert said. 

Both sides are focusing on one man, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy yms, the frequent swing vote on the court, who wrote the 5-to-4 majority opinion striking down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Justice Kennedy did not say whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, leaving it up to individual states. But he defined the terms of battle. 

Opponents said their course was to show how same-sex marriage is a breach of thousands of years of history. duh

Advocates have seized, especially, on Justice Kennedy’s language that denying marriage to gay and lesbian couples harms their children by assigning them second-class status. The Pennsylvania suit argues that children of same-sex couples are deprived of “social recognition and respect” and of financial benefits that married parents enjoy. the gay terrorists already said they are really looking for validation. the gay "rights" movement is one lie based on another.

The Whitewoods said their daughters, Abbey, 16, and Katie, 14, were eager to join the suit. 

“Having children means we have to protect our children in the utmost way,” said Susan Whitewood, a human resources executive, who with her partner chose the same last name after a Holy Union ceremony at their church in 1993. “We have to be enormously proactive in everything we do that we don’t get discriminated against or don’t have negative ramifications.” 

Before school each year, she and her partner, Deb Whitewood, 45, a stay-at-home "mother", met with teachers in their suburban Pittsburgh community to explain their family and answer any questions. Invariably their girls were the first a teacher had encountered with two mothers, the women said.“People would ask the questions,” Deb Whitewood said, “and then things would just go totally normal from there.” 

(NY Times, Highlights are mine)

Orthodox Union's Statement ?Against? Yesterday's Court Ruling

“In response to the decisions announced today by the United States Supreme Court with reference to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, we reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith, enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and condemns the institutionalization of such relationships as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. up to here I like At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals. I don't remember this gemara
We are grateful that we live in a democratic society, in which all religions are free to express their opinions about social issues and to advocate vigorously for those opinions. The reason we opt to express our viewpoint in a public forum is because we believe that our Divine system of law not only dictates our beliefs and behaviors, but also represents a system of universal morality, and therefore can stake a claim in the national discourse. That morality, expressed in what has broadly been labeled Judeo-Christian ethics, has long had a place in American law and jurisprudence.

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.and if chas veshalom the gays win in their move to ban bris Milah would you also "respect" the results?  Speaking of process, legally this easily ranks as the worst supreme court decision ever.  Over 1000 people voted on the (5th) amendment that was cited in the court decision, Yet not only would not a single person from amongst them (including it's writers) agree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, not a single one of them would have even agreed with same gender "marriage"!
The Orthodox Union is proud to assert its beliefs and principles in the public forum, and will continue to do so in a manner that is tolerant and respectful of all of our nation’s citizens except Orthodox Jews, but which is also authentically based upon our sacred ancient texts and time-honored traditions.” at least for most of the first paragraph!
(Orthodox Union)

Agudas Yisroel's Statement ?Against? Yesterday's Court Ruling

 Agudah becomes Poets to commemorate yesterdays court decision

“Society’s mores may shift and crumble but eternal verities exist. One is marriage, the union of a man and a woman. Its sanctity may have been grievously insulted by the High Court today, but that sanctity remains untouched.” – Agudath Israel of America

Study Finds Media Supports Toevah "Marriage", But What About The Orthodox Media

Pro Toevah reporter Yosef Rapaport

Study Finds Supportive Tilt to Gay Marriage Coverage (What About The Orthodox Jewish Media)

By BRIAN STELTER like usual highlights are mine

Published: June 17, 2013

News organizations are far more likely to present a supportive view of same-sex marriage than an antagonistic view, according to a content study by the Pew Research Center to be released on Monday.

The researchers assessed a representative sample of mainstream coverage for two months this year, and found that many stories contained either a balanced mix of views or no views at all. But of the rest, roughly five times as many stories were weighted toward support for same-sex marriage as were weighted toward opposition. 

“A story was deemed to be in support of or opposition to same-sex marriage if the statements expressing that view outnumbered opposing statements by at least 2-to-1,” the report stated. 

It added, “The level of support conveyed in the news media examined here goes beyond the level seen in public opinion surveys.” The imbalance was evident both in reporting and in commentary, and on all three of the major cable news channels, Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. 

The study lends credence to conservative charges that the nation’s news media have championed the issue of same-sex marriage at the expense of objectivity. Others have argued that news organizations are right not to overly emphasize opposition to what many see as a core civil rights issue.  (notice how the New York Times Story on Bias Shows Bias)

The researchers noted in their report that many of the developments that the news media were covering were intrinsically positive for the gay rights movement, including votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the state level. 

The researchers separately looked at Twitter postings about the topic this year, which were “almost evenly divided between support and opposition for the measure — closely reflecting public opinion.”
(New York Times)

Lesbian Quinn Goes To An Orthodox Shul On Friday Night

 

 

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman accompanied Christine Quinn to Orthodox Shul on the Upper West Side Ohev Tzedek.  I do not know whether or not she got official approval from the Shul to show up, or if she even got any official acknowledgment that she was there.  It's also unclear if she used this opportunity to preach to Orthodox Jews about her "wife" like she did in Flatbush.  It is clear that for some reason she seems to be targeting the Orthodox Jewish community as of late (that makes zero political sense in terms of getting her elected) .  However It's clear to anybody with any sense that she only cares about our communities opposition to toevah, and by showing up for meaningless appearances she will lessen the Jewish communities opposition to toevah.

Tzipi Livni Pushes For Toevah "Marriage" In Israel

Tel Aviv Toevah "Pride" parade

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (Hatnua) on Sunday was set to present to ministers a bill that seeks to recognize civil union for same-sex partners, as well as civil marriage for those who do not meet religious standards for marriage, currently the only criteria recognized by the State of Israel.

Israelis who aren’t registered as belonging to an organized religion — converts are only recognized as Jewish if they’ve undergone Orthodox conversion — are often forced to marry abroad for lack of options in the country. The same is true for couples in which the two members don’t share the same faith.

The bill, which is to be debated by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, was initiated by MK Meir Sheetrit of Livni’s Hatnua party. Sources in the party said they expect broad support from the coalition, with committee members from Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beytenu and some from Likud expressing approval for same-sex unions, Haaretz reported.

However, the Orthodox Jewish Home party has asserted that it would exercise its veto right to stymie the bill. The party said it wanted to establish a committee to examine the issue before bringing a government-sponsored bill to Knesset vote, Ynet reported.

“We want to find a solution for the people who came here under the Law of Return and who find themselves unable to marry. We are talking about some 300,000 people,” Livni told Army Radio Sunday morning.

The Law of Return, which determines who is eligible for automatic citizenship, has a far broader definition of who is a Jew than does the state-run rabbinate, so some people considered Jewish for the sake of immigration rights are nevertheless not allowed to marry as Jews.

“The bill will make it possible for them to marry and be recognized by the state,” Livni said. “It’s an appropriate solution that has been a long time in the making, and has been floated many times, but has previously been met with strong opposition from the ultra-Orthodox parties.”

In April, a report by Hiddush, an Israeli NGO that monitors religious freedom, claimed that Israel is ranked in the bottom 23 percent of world nations in terms of the restrictions it imposes on marriage — on a par with countries such as Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.

“Only recognized religious marriage ceremonies are allowed,” the text of the report read. ”For Jews, only weddings that are held according to strict Orthodox standards are accepted. There is no option for civil marriage or interfaith marriage. Weddings conducted outside of the country are recognized. 300,000 citizens are defined as ‘without religion’ and they are unable to get married in the country.”

Granting same-sex couples the status of civil union would give them similar rights to married couples without defining their relationship as a marriage. During the gay pride parade in Tel Aviv earlier this month, Finance Minister Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) was booed off the stage due to his party’s disavowal of support for full gay marriage.
(Times of Israel)