DENVER (AP) — A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.
As more states move to legalize same-sex marriage and civil unions, the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and supporters of religious freedom. Read more…
By Jennifer Roback Morse
This article was first published May 9, 2013, at americanthinker.com.
You have no doubt heard the news that gay marriage is inevitable. The New York state legislature redefined marriage in 2011. Rhode Island redefined marriage earlier this week. Delaware just removed the gender requirement from marriage. Minnesota is poised to vote on the issue this week. This steady drumbeat of state legislatures changing the definition of marriage as it has been known for millennia surely must show that so-called gay marriage is inevitable. Read more…
Categories: Jennifer Roback Morse, Marriage Equality, Marriage Legalities, Marriage Redefinition, Newsletter articles, Politics & Marriage, Same Sex Marriage genderless marriage, marriage equality, Marriage Redefinition, politics and marriage, Same Sex Marriage
This week, we started something BIG… but we’re only getting started!
Click here right away to sign NOM’s Marriage Petition to the Supreme Court!
On Tuesday, thousands of people rallied in Washington DC, marching in front of the Supreme Court in support of the true definition of marriage: the exclusive and faithful union of one man and one woman!
NOM brought together a coalition of over 40 groups in support of this effort and it has already made a tremendous impact! We met our opponents on the street in front of the Supreme Court, but thanks to the brave individuals who came out in support of marriage on Tuesday, the UK Daily Mail was able to report that we “easily outnumber[ed] advocates for gay marriage.” Read more…
Institute for Marriage and Public Policy , Harvey C. Mansfield and Leon R. Kass
The case rests squarely on sociology and psychology. How reliable can this be, ask two distinguished scholars.
Today the US Supreme Court begins hearings on two same-sex marriage cases. Scores of organisations have presented “amicus briefs” to the Court as background to the legal arguments. Here we present an edited version of a submission by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and two distinguished scholars. Leon Kass, of the University of Chicago, and Harvey Mansfield, of Harvard University, are experts on the limits of the scientific method and on issues relevant to the appropriate structure of family life. This is a long but extremely valuable contribution to the debate over same-sex marriage. Read more…
Marriage supporters to rally in Washington, D.C., on March 26 as Supreme Court hears cases
by John Burger
Supporters of both traditional marriage and same-sex unions will converge on the nation’s capital this week as the Supreme Court takes up two cases that could do to marriage what Roe v. Wade did to unborn human life.
The National Organization for Marriage is holding a March for Marriage on Tuesday morning, March 26, as the high court hears oral arguments in the first case, a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which changed that state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Arguments are expected to be heard the next day in a case contesting the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Read more…
by William W. Beach and Ryan T. Anderson
This article was first published March 13, 2013 at thepublicdiscourse.com.
Good public policy can meet the needs of all Americans without redefining marriage.
When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) later this month, many casual observers will focus on what they call the fairness of redefining marriage. Interestingly, though, the dispute at the heart of the DOMA case could have been avoided had Congress enacted fairer tax reform years ago. Read more…
Recently I had an exchange on Facebook about redefining marriage to include gay couples. I mentioned something about conservative gays against gay marriage, and a friend replied to me, saying:
“I for one have never heard of a conservative gay … so that’s a new one on me.”
I wasn’t surprised when he said it, because I didn’t know that conservative gays existed either until the past couple years. Like him, I thought all gays were liberals.
But conservative gays do exist. There are gays who do not agree with the gay marriage issue.
I keep wondering why liberal gays get all the media attention. Why are liberal gays the only gays you see on TV with signs and banners? Why are they the ones who get interviews and publicity, and not the others? Isn’t the marriage issue a gay issue? Read more…
The Left is fond of talking about the evolution of marriage. They claim that their desire to redefine marriage is nothing more than marriage evolving. Let’s dissect this claim by examining the historical components of marriage. They are:
1. The duration component. (for life)
2. The number component. (two people)
3. The blood relationship component. (not related)
4. The age component. (not too young)
5. The human component (human beings rather than animals or other non humans)
6. The gender component. (both genders required)
Historically, there have been variations in a couple of these components: Read more…
More craziness from California:
California, the battleground state for the arguments for and against same-sex marriage, is now considering an unconventional law that would allow children to be legally granted more than two parents. Read more…
Categories: adoption, Artificial Reproductive Technology, Divorce, family, fathers, Fathers' Rights, Gay and Lesbian, Marriage Legalities, Marriage Redefinition, Parental Rights, Politics & Marriage, Surrogate Mothers artificial reproductive technologies, Divorce, Donor Conceived Persons, family, fathers, gay marriage, invitro fertilization, parental rights
by Jennifer Roback Morse
April 2, 2012 http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5069
We cannot escape the fact that marriage is an intrinsically public institution. We can’t avoid making collective decisions about its meaning and purpose. If we don’t do it explicitly, we will end up doing it implicitly.
As a libertarian myself, I have been quite disappointed that the “default” libertarian position on marriage has become little more than a sound-bite: “Let’s get the state out of the marriage business.” With all due respect, this position is unsound. Read more…