Agudath Israel Admitted That They Did Not Fight NY's Same Gender "Marriage" Bill

Agudas Israel's Shmuel Lefkowitz said 2 weeks before NEW YORK's same gender "marriage" bill passed that he wasn't fighting it because he didn't think it was going to pass!

 At this point any person with an once of intelligence knew that this bill had a very good chance of passing.

 Shmuel Lefkowitz on the "marriage" bill that passed 2 weeks later

 If I believed the votes were there, I’d put more effort into it,” he says. “I believe this is under control

 

• June 13, 2011

This year, LGBT advocates in New York had ample cause to be hopeful. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, brimming with political capital, declared same-sex "marriage" a top priority for his administration and Agudah supported Coumo by portraying Carl Paladino as an anti semite and appeared far more adept at the art of legislative wrangling than his troubled predecessor, David Paterson. A cohort of deep-pocketed Republican donors and advocates, led by George W. Bush’s recently-out-of-the-closet campaign manager Ken Mehlman, seemed poised to shake up the traditional partisan breakdown by winning over some moderate GOP legislators. Polling data has consistently shown that a majority of New Yorkers, and now even a majority of Americans, favor marriage equality. And indeed, rumors leaking into the press today suggest victory may be within reach, though advocates won’t rest until the votes are in. Conservative religious groups, meanwhile, who’ve spent months imploring lawmakers not to capitulate in the face of mounting public pressure, are cautiously confident that their efforts have been successful.

Taking the Gospel to the Legislature
Rev. Jason McGuire, the executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, who oversees a loosely organized interfaith effort to oppose same-sex marriage, dismisses the notion that there has been any consequential movement among Republicans as “a puff piece for the media.”

“In my conversations with senators,” he said, “I’m just not getting the impression that it has been that big of a factor. If Republicans want to retain the majority and be back here in Albany, they have to remember their base.”

McGuire, a fixture of the state capitol building, routinely holds prayer breakfasts, Bible studies, and other outreach events for lawmakers. “I use lobbying as a platform to take the gospel to the legislature,” he told me. McGuire views the united front put on by Gov. Cuomo, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and other New York political figures as little more than the product of a cold political calculus. “I don’t think he’s as truly committed to the issue as perhaps he’s portrayed,” McGuire says of Cuomo. “The bottom line is, he came from a very difficult budget session and acted like a conservative in many ways—that did not please his base. So the only thing he sees right now that he can do to win back his liberal-left base is same-sex "marriage".”

The strategy for McGuire at this late hour is to simply “run out the clock”—emphasize that other items on the governor’s agenda, like an ethics overhaul and property tax relief, are more important to New Yorkers than same-sex marriage. But some of his allies are taking a more confrontational stance. Sen. Reuben Diaz, a Pentecostal minister and the legislature’s most brazenly vocal opponent of so called "marriage" equality, held a provocative rally on May 15 in the Bronx, where he was joined by National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has purchased at least a half million dollars worth of television ads (one of which has been declared false by the non-partisan organization Politifact) and pledges to spend $1.5 million to defeat legislators who vote for the bill. Dennis Poust, a lobbyist with the New York Catholic Conference, says the Archdiocese of New York has no formal relationship with the NOM. (In Maine, the initiative campaign that resulted in repeal of marriage equality legislation was led by the Church and funded primarily by NOM and Catholic organizations.) Despite being led by Catholics, Poust said, NOM operates largely independently of the Church. “We’ve spoken to them; filled them in on the situation when it began to heat up,” he said. “They’ve gotten involved on their own.”

In contrast with NOM’s public displays of fervor, the Catholic Conference relies more on its personnel’s individual relationships with legislators as a means of advocacy. No emotional rallies, no massive advertising buys, and no protracted fundraising pushes for specific political initiatives. “We can’t compete with the other side financially,” Poust said. “And we don’t try to.”

But New York’s high-profile Archbishop, US Conference of Catholic Bishops President Timothy Dolan, has been unafraid to publicly associate with NOM. Heading into this final week, Dolan and Diaz were scheduled to record an interview with NOM’s Maggie Gallagher for broadcast on satellite radio. Diaz told me Dolan’s impassioned involvement this year was evidence that organized religious opposition has not wavered since 2009, when a same-sex "marriage" bill failed by an unexpectedly large margin. “He issued a statement that is very, very powerful,” Diaz said. “Two years ago they didn’t do that.”

“To uphold that traditional definition, to strengthen it, and to defend it is not a posture of bigotry or bullying,” Archbishop Dolan wrote in a May 19 blog post. “Nor is it a denial of the ‘right’ of anybody. To tamper with that definition, or to engage in some Orwellian social engineering about the nature and purpose of marriage, is perilous to all of us.”

Dov Hikind is Insulted
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 yet not enough, not to vote for those who caused it to pass 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.”

Religious opponents routinely reference the shocking level of vitriol they say they’ve encountered for their piety; for remaining observant of what they see as thousands-year-old beliefs. Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn assemblyman who represents one of the largest communities of Orthodox Jews outside of Israel, told me,

“I think more than ever before—and if we vote on it in the assembly, this is what I’m going to speak about—I sort of resent the fact that if you’re for human rights, civil rights, morality, then you gotta be for gay "marriage". You know, that’s insulting to me. And it should be to a lot of New Yorkers.”

“They’re throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, in order to get people to vote for this,” Hikind said. “Lady Gaga thinks I should vote for gay "marriage"? It’s like the world turned upside down.”
(religiondispatches)highlights are my additions

A few days later Lefkowitz told one of the few Orthodox Jews who was in Albany actually trying to fight the bill that he wasn't fighting it strongly because it was going to pass.  He also refused to ally Agudah up with those people in the Orthodox Jewish community who were in lobbying and I'm not referring to Rabi Levin senators in Albany and warning people weeks before this interview, that bill was in great danger of passing and that we needed to lobby our legislators with great strength.  His reason was he was afraid they would mess things up, so how did aguda try and lobby Albany they met with Andrew Coumo to officially try and convince him not to pass the bill that he promised to pass.


The next primary/general election after the "marriage" bill passed Agudah (board members) supported the same legislators who voted to pass the bill they were supposedly against.

The Blog's Back; Correction And Apology For Accidentally Misstating David Greenfield's Record

                 We'll like to apologize to all my readers for making a mistake in David Greenfield's record.  we accidentally stated that Greenfield applied for money for toevah institutions (including teaching in schools).  While the money was applied for, it wasn't applied for by him.  The way the process works is that any group can apply for a grant to any member of the city council.  We were misinformed by someone who should have (and most likely does) know how the process worked.  The person in question did not know that money was requested in Greenfield's name for teaching toevah but did tell us that money was requested for toevah groups.  Unlike all other things reported on by this blog we didn't properly understand by ourselves how the grant process works and relied on those who should have understood these matters. We therefore apologize to all those who relied on us for 100% accurate information.

                    We further apologize to David Greenfield YMS, for accidentally making him a bigger rasha than he really is.  While Greenfield did vote for a resolution labeling gay relationships "families" (which implies "marriage"), vote for a resolution pushing for late term abortions, vote for a resolution asking the government paying for abortions, argued in court for Nadler to represent Borough Park and Flatbush in congress, and goes against rabbaniem in supporting toevah candidates most notably Lew Fidler, and was one of Christine Quinn's biggest supporters, got a gay political clubs endorsement (without ever condemning it), he did not apply for funding for toevah organizations and for our misunderstanding of the application process we are now publicly apologizing to him.

Because of this unfortunate mistake We temporarily stopped the blog but now we are back.

Unfortunately most of Borough Park And Flatbush voted to elect this rasha, choosing to listen to "askoniem" instead of the Torah.  May all these askoniem (misyavniem) be thrown out together with the chamez this year

May we be remember that Am Yisroel should be a nation that hates toevah and do teshuva for reelecting this rasha gamur.

We finally call on David Greenfield to apologize for all his stated misdeeds plus the ones that we didn't state, and do everything in power to undo all the reshus that he helped pass.

We urge David Greenfield to sponsor a resolution calling on NY to ban same gender "marriage", to become a true Baal Teshuva.

Chris Christie YMS Allows Same Gender "Marriages"

After signing a Homosexual Teaching Bill, And Ban On Helping Children Get Rid of Homosexual Desires, Chris Christie does the ultimate Betrayal of allowing Same Gender "Marriages!  This a clear Betrayal of the 1000's of his supporters especially in Lakewood who only voted for him because of his opposition to Same Gender "Marriages". Maybe Lakewood CEO Aaron Kotler (Who Has yet to drop his support of Christie) Should have invited Christie To Shul last Shabbos to hear what happened to the cities (Sdom etc.) that were full of sexual immorality!

Don't Vote For Chris Christie This Year! 
Go To Vote and write in NO Gay "Marriages"!

As couples across New Jersey began "marrying" on Monday after the stroke of midnight, Gov. Chris Christie abandoned his long fight against same-sex "marriage", concluding that signals from the court and the march of history were against him.

Gov. Chris Christie rescinded his legal challenge to same-sex "marriages" the first day gay "couples" could "wed" in New Jersey.

His decision not to appeal a judge’s ruling that allowed the "weddings" removed the last hurdle to legalized same-sex "marriage" in New Jersey, making it the 14th state, along with the District of Columbia, to allow gay "couples" to "wed". 

Mr. Christie’s advisers said it became clear late on Friday that the fight had to end after the State Supreme Court announced it would not grant the governor’s request to block same-sex "marriages" while he appealed. 

Not only did the court decision say that his appeal had no “reasonable probability of success,” it was also unanimous — signed by the justices Mr. Christie has long warred against and by the one he considered on his side, Justice Anne M. Patterson. 

The governor concluded that, legally, he was out of arguments, and that it would be what one aide called a “fool’s errand” to continue in the face of almost certain failure. 

Politically, members of his staff bet that they could contain the damage by arguing that the governor had never changed his mind — he still opposes same-sex "marriage" — and blaming activist judges, which even critics of the governor’s decision began doing on Monday. 

“He looks realistic, while sticking to his principles — and people are happy,” said one adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss strategy. 

Mr. Christie, a Republican widely considered a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination in 2016, has long tried to walk a fine line on same-sex "marriage", which polls show is popular in his home state, but opposed by conservative voters in important primary states. Last year, he vetoed legislation allowing same-sex "marriage", saying voters should decide the issue in a referendum. As recently as last week, he repeated his position that he believed marriage to be between a man and a woman. But he also signed a bill outlawing so-called gay conversion therapy, which angered conservatives. 

Even if he lost on the marriage issue, his aides said, Mr. Christie could still promote himself as the kind of politician voters embrace, because they know where he stands, even if they do not agree with him.

The dizzying events in New Jersey showed how quickly the politics of same-sex "marriage" have changed. 

Starting at midnight and into early Monday, same-sex "couples" from Asbury Park to Jersey City "wed" in emotional ceremonies that had been hastily arranged after the court denied Mr. Christie’s request for a delay. 

At 8:30 a.m., lawyers representing the couples who had sued to be allowed to "marry" received calls from the administration, telling them that the governor had dropped his appeal. In a conference call later, lawyers for Lambda Legal said that they expected to prevail with similar litigation in Nevada, Virginia and West Virginia, and that they were optimistic about their chances in the legislatures in Hawaii and Illinois.

“I think the handwriting was on the wall as clearly as it could possibly be,” said Lawrence S. Lustberg, a lawyer who argued the case for gay and lesbian "couples" before the New Jersey Supreme Court.

“The governor had always said he would fight this all the way up to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Lustberg added, “but he didn’t say he was going to fight it to the Supreme Court twice. As a matter of reasonable lawyering on the one hand, and a clear perception of what the court’s position was on the other, this was inevitable.”

Just four months ago, even advocates for same-sex "marriage" believed that the governor had firmly blocked it. A coalition of state and national gay rights groups was pushing to override his veto of same-sex "marriage" legislation, but they were far short of the votes they needed.

In September, Judge Mary C. Jacobson YMS of State Superior Court ruled that the state had to allow gay "marriages" to "comply" with the United States Supreme Court decision in June that guaranteed same-sex married couples the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples. This activists decision still clearly had nothing to do with states not allowing same gender "marriage" In 2006, a New Jersey Supreme Court decision guaranteed "equal" protection to same-sex "couples", which prompted the State Legislature to enact "civil unions". But the United States Supreme Court decision meant that couples in "civil unions" did not have the same benefits as those in "marriages".this is clearly one judicial activism case built on top of another

A Rutgers Eagleton poll released on Monday found that a majority of respondents, including a majority of those supporting Mr. Christie in his bid for re-election on Nov. 5, did not want him to pursue the appeal. 

Mr. Christie is trying to roll up as big a margin of victory as possible next month so he can cast himself as a presidential candidate who can win even in blue states. Continuing to oppose same-sex "marriage" against the images of the jubilant "weddings" might have hurt that effort. at least that is what he "thinks"

His Democratic opponent, State Senator Barbara Buono, sought to remind voters that he had tried “to block the "rights" of gays and lesbians at every turn.”

“It took a determined effort by brave individuals,” Ms. Buono added, “and a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court to force the governor to drop his appeal. I am thrilled the court ended his ability to enforce his "bigoted" views that are contrary to the values of our state.”

But even prominent Republican donors had been among those financing a campaign to override Mr. Christie’s veto, suggesting that the national politics of same-sex "marriage" might be shifting. Aides to the governor acknowledged that his decision might alienate primary voters who already doubt his social conservative credentials, but they added that he was never going to have an easy time in the Iowa presidential caucuses.

Still, the administration was not exactly celebrating the position it was in. Announcements from Mr. Christie’s office typically arrive with a news release, a video and a Twitter post. This one came in a sober note from a spokesman to reporters early on Monday; there was no announcement on the governor’s Web site.

“Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people,” the note said, “the court has now spoken clearly as to their "view" of the "New Jersey Constitution" and, therefore, same-sex "marriage" is the law.

“The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court.”

National conservative groups criticized “an activist judiciary run amok,” in the words of the National Organization for Marriage. But they also had harsh words for Mr. Christie, for, as the organization said, “throwing in the towel.”

“The mark of a leader is to walk a principled walk no matter the difficulty of the path,” said the statement from the organization’s president, Brian Brown. “Chris Christie has failed the test, abandoning both voters and the core institution of society: marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” 

(NYT highlights mine)

Senator Elect Cory Booker Mocks Religious People

LAMBERTVILLE, N.J. (AP) — 

Gay "couples" exchanged vows in early morning ceremonies in several New Jersey communities Monday (A day of Tzom and Selichos) as the state began recognizing their "marriages" at 12:01 a.m., becoming the 14th state to do so.

The hastily planned first "weddings" to legally unite long-time couples were planned for a state Senator's grand home in Elizabeth, the boardwalk in Asbury Park and government buildings in small towns and big cities.

In the arts community of Lambertville, Mayor David DelVecchio led the ceremony to "marry" Beth Asaro and Joanne Schailey. He also presided when they joined in a "civil union" the minute they became recognized in the state in February 2007.

Soon after they cut the cake, DelVecchio handed Asaro a pink "marriage" license. "We're floating on air," she said. Added Schailey, "It's like winning the Super Bowl."

The "couple", both wearing suits, hosted a reception attended by friends, family and several politicians. The song "In the Mood" played.

Asaro, a member of the city council in Lambertville, said they wanted to get "married" at the first moment, in part, to promote the "gay-friendliness" of their community north of Trenton.

"This shows to the world that Lambertville is open for business," DelVecchio said.

In Newark, Mayor Cory Booker was "marrying" the first of several couples when someone attempted to disrupt the ceremony.

Booker had asked if anyone had reason to object to the marriage and a protester screamed "This is unlawful in the eyes of God and JC."

Booker, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last week, called for the person to be removed and police dragged him out.

As Booker continued speaking, "...not hearing any substantive and worthy objections," thunderous applause erupted.

The "weddings" came amid a flurry of legal activity after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the federal government should recognize gay "marriages" and confer couples with the same benefits that it does for heterosexual married couples, including joint tax filings, the right to live together in government-funded nursing homes and Social Security survivor benefits.

A state judge last month agreed with advocates who said that by allowing "civil unions" but not "marriage", New Jersey was keeping gay "couples" in the state from legal "equality".

The administration of Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican and possible 2016 presidential candidate, appealed both the ruling and Monday's implementation date to the state Supreme Court.

And on Friday, less than 60 hours before the weddings were to begin, the state's top court refused to delay them while it sorts out the overall case. The court said the state is not likely to prevail.

State Sen. Ray Lesniak said late Sunday he believes there are enough votes to override Christie's gay "marriage" veto in the Senate and that he expects a vote after the Nov. 5 election.

"Though we are 99 percent sure based on the unanimous opinion against the stay that the Supreme Court will uphold so called "marriage" "equality", we'd like to be 100 percent sure," Lesniak said.

Many of the people who have long fought for the right for gay "couples" to "marry" had been bracing for a delay, even while they were optimistic the state's top court would ultimately force New Jersey to recognize same-sex "marriage".

For the first "couples" to "tie the knot" legally, it's been a weekend of fast "wedding" planning and confusion.
Some towns began taking applications for same-sex "marriage" licenses on Thursday and continued even after the state government told them not to until there was clarity from the courts.

Other towns refused to grant licenses even after the state Health Department????? said Friday evening that towns should accept the applications.

It's expected that a rush of "weddings" will continue in coming days as couples are able to get licenses.
(AP)

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

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

"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

New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Photographers Required To Photograph Same Gender "Weddings"

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Thursday that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex "union" violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

In 2006 Vanessa Willock asked Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, to photograph a same-sex “commitment "ceremony"” in the town of Taos.

Huguenin and her husband declined the job because their Christian beliefs were in conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony.

Willock found another photographer at a cheaper price but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission accusing Elane Photography of discrimination based on sexual orientation. She was later found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars in fines.

“The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation – photographing a same-sex "marriage" ceremony – than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims,” Justice Richard Bosson wrote in the court’s unanimous decision.

Bosson said the Christian photographers are now “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

“Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering,” he wrote. “It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.”

A recent Rasmussen survey found that 85 percent of Americans support the right of a photographer to refuse participating in a same-sex wedding.

Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.

He said the Constitution protects the rights of the Christian photographers to pray to the God of their choice and following religious teachings, but offered a sobering warning.

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, representing the photographers. Attorney Jordan Lorence said the ruling in effect means gay rights now trump religious rights.

“Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country,” Lorence said. “This decision is a blow to our client and every American’s right to live free.”

Lorence said the New Mexico Supreme Court undermined the constitutionally protected freedoms of expression and conscience.

“If Elane Photographer does not have her rights of conscience protected, then basically nobody does,” he told Fox News. “What you have here is the government punishing someone who says, ‘I, in good conscience, cannot communicate the messages of this wedding.’”

Amber Royster, the executive director of Equality New Mexico, called the court decision a big victory.

“What it came down to is this was a case about discrimination,” she told Fox News. “While we certainly believe we are all entitled to our religious beliefs, religious beliefs don’t necessarily make it okay to break the law by discriminating against others.”

Royster said forcing a business that offers services to the public to abide by discrimination laws does not violate the First Amendment – and does not pit gay rights against religious rights.

“It’s about discrimination,” she said. “It’s not religious rights versus gay rights. We have a law on the books that makes it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons. It makes it illegal for business to do that and this business broke the law by discriminating against this couple.”

Ken Klukowsi, of the Family Research Council, called the ruling profoundly disturbing.

“This decision may bring to Americans’ attention the serious threat to religious liberty posed by overbearing government agencies when it comes to redefining marriage,” he said. “Rather than live and let live, this is forcing religious Americans to violate the basic teachings of their faith or lose their jobs.”

Lorence said they are considering appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is very coercive, very authoritarian to crush those who do not agree and make public examples of them – and in a free society, that simply should not be,” he said.
 (Fox News)

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)

Solider Being Forced Out Of The Military For Opposing Same Gender "Marriage"

Airman Punished for Objecting to Gay "Marriage" in Military Chapel

A 27-year veteran of the Utah Air National Guard said he was reprimanded after he wrote a letter objecting to a gay "wedding" in the West Point chapel and was later told to prepare for retirement because his personal beliefs about homosexuality were not compatible with the military’s policies.

“The military is trying to make examples of people who have religious beliefs that homosexual conduct in the military is wrong,” said John Wells, an attorney representing TSgt. Layne Wilson. “The end game is to force conservative Christians out of the military.”

Last December Wilson wrote a letter to a person believed to be a chaplain at West Point. He stated his displeasure at news of a same-sex ceremony held in the Cadet Chapel.

“This is wrong on so many levels,” Wilson wrote. “If they wanted to get married in a hotel that is one thing. Our base chapels are a place of worship and this is a mockery to God and our military core values. I have proudly served 27 years and this is a slap in the face to us who have put our lives on the line for this country. I hope sir that you will take appropriate action so this does not happen again.”

Instead of responding to the private email, the Commandant of Cadets notified the Utah Air National Guard – leading to an accusation that he had brought "disgrace" and "discredit" upon the Air National Guard and his conduct was inconsistent with the United States Air Force.

The Air National Guard determined that Wilson’s email “failed to render the proper "respect" to a commissioned officer.”

“You are hereby reprimanded,” read a letter from Lt. Col. Kevin Tobias. “As a noncommissioned officer you are expected to maintain a standard of professional and personal behavior that is above reproach. You have failed!”

A public affairs officer with the Utah Air National Guard told Fox News they could not comment on pending litigation.

Ironically, Wells pointed out, the Defense of Marriage Act was still the law of the land and TSgt. Layne was simply reporting “what he believed was a violation of the law.”

In addition to his reprimand, the Air National Guard terminated a six-year reenlistment contract. Instead, they gave Layne a one-year extension.

“Due to the fact that I expressed my views on homosexuality in uniform; Lt. Col. Tobias stated that I was no longer compatible with further military service,” Wilson wrote in a letter detailing the discrimination allegations.

Tobias confirmed Wilson’s allegation in a memorandum dated June 19, 2013 and obtained by Fox News.

“We talked about his feelings about DADT and how he doesn’t agree with it,” Tobias wrote. “I then told him that maybe this is a good time for him to move on because we’ve been ordered to not have an opinion about Gays in the military and we need to treat them as we would treat anyone else in the service of our country.”

“I also reiterated that I respect his feelings but I’m not comfortable reenlisting him with his strong feelings about this matter,” he additionally wrote.

Col. Ronald Blunck concurred with Tobias – noting that “Your right to practice your religious beliefs does not excuse you from complying with directives, instructions and lawful orders.”

“Lt. Col. Tobias is correct in demanding that TSgt. Wilson refrain from expressing opinions contrary to Air Force guidance while in uniform,” Blunck wrote. “The Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was directed by law.”

Wilson also discussed concerns he had about a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” repeal briefing in 2011. He told his superior officers he found the briefing to be “very disturbing” and “conflicting with my moral rights of conscience.”

“My issue is so much about homosexuals serving in the military, but rather that it is being forced upon as an acceptable lifestyle abandoning our traditional values,” he wrote.

He said the military has created an atmosphere where those who do not approve of homosexual conduct “must remain disapprovingly silent or face reprisal to our careers.”

“It is evident those who refuse to affirm homosexuality and openly oppose it are being severely punished,” he wrote.

Attorney Wells told Fox News he wants the military to rescind the reprimand and reinstate the original six-year reenlistment contract.

“This was an executed contract,” he said. “But they just went in, tore it up and issued a new one.”

Wells said his client’s only “crime” was registering his opinion that a gay "marriage" in a military chapel was a violation of the law that existed at that time.

“His actions were proper within the scope of the Uniform Code and the Manual for Courts-Martial,” Wells said. “While his interpretation of the law may or may not have been correct, his actions should not have given rise to the firestorm of reprisals that he has suffered.”

Wells said he believes the military is trying to send a message to other troops- and incidents like this are just the “tip of the iceberg.”

“They’re trying to make examples of people early on who have religious beliefs that homosexual conduct in the military is wrong,” he said. “When these people assert their First Amendment rights, they are getting slapped down and slapped down hard.”

Wells isn’t alone in his fears.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said there is a clear and present danger to religious liberty within the military.

“Christians who choose to live out their faith find themselves incompatible with the secular view of this administration,” said Perkins. “We’re establishing a beach head for religious liberty and the evidence points to a very deliberate attack.”

Representatives of 14 groups concerned about religious liberty joined Reps. John Fleming R-La., Jim Bridenstine R-Okla., and Louie Gohmert R-Tex. on Capitol Hill to urge support for Fleming’s military religious freedom amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

The amendment protects the rights of servicemembers to not only hold religious beliefs but to act on them and speak about them. Fleming’s amendment has bipartisan support but the Obama Administration issued a statement “strongly objecting” to the legislation.

The amendment comes as more than 170,000 Americans signed petitions calling for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to protect the religious liberties of military personnel through policies that guarantee those liberties.

“We want to make this the first key battle to restore religious liberty back to the American people,” Fleming told Fox News. “It sets the tone for a broader war to fight back against this government that is infringing on our religious liberty.”

Perkins and Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, the FRC’s executive vice president, released a nine-page document detailing anti-religious behavior in the military.

“Unfortunately, pressures to impose a secular, anti-religious culture on our nation’s military services have intensified tremendously during the Obama Administration,” the FRC report states.

“We will stand with servicemembers who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights of religious liberty,” Boykin said. ‘We must do all we can to ensure that our servicemembers have the right to practice the very freedoms that they risk their lives to defend.”
(townhall)

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.

Northern Ireland Defeats Attempt To Allow Same Gender "Marriage"

Using TV Characters In Ireland to Promote Same Gender "Marriage"

Final Vote Was
53
For Real Marriage
 to 
42
For Marriage Redefinition

Gay marriage has been defeated in Northern Ireland following a block vote of major Unionist parties against it.

Sinn Fein introduced the bill in the Northern Irish Assembly and had the backing of the SDLP the other main nationalist party, the Alliance Party, and the Green Party. Three independent unionists also voted for it.
However the combined unionist vote of the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist party defeated the bill by 50 to 45.

Pro-gay marriage advocates now expect a court challenge against the ban in both Britain and at the European Court on the grounds that it is allowed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, reports the Guardian.
Amnesty International stated the prospects of a gay couple taking a legal case to the European Court of Human Rights is now a distinct possibility.

Sinn Féin Assembly member for South Down Caitriona Ruane stated: "Attitudes in Ireland are changing because people do not want to see people discriminated against.
"The gay community has said enough is enough. They are standing up for themselves and their communities."
She claimed young gay people were turning to suicide because of rampant discrimination and bullying. "If they don't have an alternative voice to the vitriolic gay-bashing they will internalise it," she said.

All the main churches, Protestant and Catholic, opposed the bill. But the gay Christian lobby group “Changing Attitudes Ireland” condemned the unionist veto.

Church of Ireland minister Canon Charles Kenny, the secretary of Changing Attitudes Ireland, stated: "The year is drawing nearer when the love and justice expressed in the gospels will win out and sweep away the faith-based prejudice against gay and lesbian couples."

Democratic Unionist finance minister Sammy Wilson said the unionist parties would always vote to defeat "reckless" legislation.

(irishcentral)

Rick Santorum Warns Republicans That Caving On Marriage Is Suicidal

A “chastened” U.S. Supreme Court won’t make the mistake of granting same-sex "marriage" rights, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum predicted in an interview Monday.

“I think you’ll see, hopefully, a chastened Supreme Court is not going to make the same mistake in the (current) cases as they did in Roe v. Wade,” which legalized abortion, Santorum told The Des Moines Register in a telephone interview. “I’m hopeful the Supreme Court learned its lesson about trying to predict where the American public is going on issues and trying to find rights in the Constitution that sit with the fancy of the day.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two major same-sex "marriage" cases last month, and rulings are expected by June.
Santorum, a religious conservative who won the 2012 GOP Iowa caucuses by 34 votes, will be in Iowa Monday to speak at the spring fundraiser for the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition, a nonprofit group that presses for Christian principles in government.
Asked about his plans to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, he said: “I haven’t made any decisions.” The father of seven said the decision would depend on his personal life and the political scene in the next election cycle.
Santorum is coming to Iowa next week to say that although some Republicans here and elsewhere are now publicly backing "marriage" rights for same-sex couples, the party will never embrace that.
“One of the things I learned from the last four years is that when you go to Iowa, people pay attention to what you say,” he said. “That’s always a gift that Iowa can bring to any person in public life. We’re going to talk about the concerns I have.”
There’s obviously “an increasing mood” on supporting gay "marriage", but “it is not a well thought-out position by the American public,” Santorum said.
Asked what he thinks about the two Midwest Republican senators who have recently backed gay "marriage", Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Santorum said some Republicans splintered off in the late 1960s and early 1970s to support abortion rights when the courts “started mucking around with pro-life statutes at the state level.”
“I’m sure you could go back and read stories, oh, you know, ‘The Republican Party’s going to change. This is the future.’ Obviously that didn’t happen,” Santorum said. “I think you’re going to see the same stories written now, and it’s not going to happen. The Republican Party’s not going to change on this issue. In my opinion it would be suicidal if it did.”
It’s healthy to talk about how the party can best communicate its message, he said, but “it’s another thing to change those foundational principles. Just because some of those things happen to be popular right now doesn’t mean the Republican Party should follow suit,” he said.