Louisiana
Supreme Court Upholds Same Sex Marriage Ban
In Louisiana the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously
that the November ballot initiative defining marriage as
the union between one man and one woman was legal
and binding.
It had been challenged by homosexual activists trying to
overturn the Will of the People on a legal technicality that
claimed the law dealt with more than one issue. But, the
Louisiana Supreme Court said, "Each provision of the
amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage."
Several similar
arguments from homosexual activists are
pending in other states. If the other states, which include
Georgia, Ohio, and Mississippi, follow the Louisiana model
this will be a huge victory for the family.
DOMA
Upheld For First Time Since MA
Same Sex Marriage Decision
In Florida, on the same day the Louisiana Supreme Court
handed down its ruling in support of marriage, U.S. District
Judge James S. Moody upheld the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
This was the first ruling of its kind since Massachusetts
started allowing same sex marriage.
The plaintiffs, two lesbians
who had been married in Massachusetts, had sued to have their "marriage" recognized
by the state of Florida. They claimed marriage was a fundamental
right but the judge disagreed. He went further and stated, "...
this court is constrained to hold [the law] and the Florida
statutes ... constitutionally valid."
How lovely to hear a judge use the word "constrained." Judicial
activism is in full retreat thanks to people exactly like
you who have worked so hard to make your Voices
Heard.
Even the lawyer who had filed the suit for the homosexual
women acknowledged the significance of the decision. "This
is a legal shot heard round the world," said attorney Ellis
Rubin.
He went further and was quite likely correct, "This case
is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court." The problem
for the homosexual activists is that they now need to
have a higher court reverse the decision.
If it arrives at
the U.S. Supreme Court as it stands, and the high court
refuses to hear the case, this decision will become federal
law. Please keep this important issue in your prayers, and
if you haven't already done so please consider signing our
petition in support of traditional marriage! http://www.abolishgaymarriage.org
Supreme
Court Refuses to Stop Inaugural Prayers
The
same day the pro-Family movement received good news from
Louisiana and Florida in the battle to defend traditional
marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal
to stop prayers from being offered at the Presidential
Inauguration. Two lower courts had already heard the request
from atheist activist and publicity hound Michael Newdow.
Both
courts rejected his request to ban prayers, suggesting
he could not show actual injury. Last week, U.S. District
Judge John Bates -- who apparently had read the Constitution,
particularly the part about three co-equal branches of
government -- went even further and stated that the court
did not have the authority to stop the President from inviting
clergy to give a religious prayer at the ceremony.
First,
Chief Justice William Rehnquist then Justice John Paul
Stevens refused to hear Newdow's appeal, effectively ending
the matter.
Newdow,
a California lawyer and physician, became infamous and created
a national firestorm when he convinced a federal judge to
remove "under
God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Having sipped briefly
from the cup of fame he has become addicted to its allure.
We have no doubt he'll be back soon. He has already
filed papers to make another attempt at removing God from
the Pledge.
Indiana
Court Rules for DOMA
Late
in the week, Indiana joined Louisiana and Florida in
making a strong stand in favor of traditional marriage.
On Thursday the Indiana Court of Appeals
ruled that the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
is constitutional.
"What
we decide today is that the Indiana Constitution does
not require the governmental recognition of same-sex
marriage," the court said in its written ruling.
They
went further in noting that "the Legislature is certainly
free to grant such recognition or create a parallel institution
under that document.'' The court said that
the proper forum for this issue is the state's General
Assembly and not the courts.
The
case came to the courts when three homosexual couples
tried to force the state to recognize "civil unions" that
were performed in Vermont. The court denied this appeal.
Despite losing
twice in court, it is expected that the homosexual
activists will be appealing this latest ruling to
the Indiana Supreme Court.
Currently
there is movement building in the Indiana legislature
toward introducing a full Constitutional amendment defining
marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If that happens,
this case will be moot.
Secret Service Drops Ban on Crosses
We
first brought this to your attention as our Outrage of
the Week in the January 9th edition of our newsletter,
and asked you to sign a petition protesting the issue.
Vast numbers of you jumped on board, and in the ensuing
week the issue was picked up by scores of pro-Christian
organizations in what became a crushing number of Voices
Being Heard!
As
a result, a week before the Presidential Inauguration
the Secret Service dropped the ban on "crosses" along
the parade route!
In
a letter from U.S. Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein they
claimed that it was never their intention to ban crosses
or any other religious symbols and were referring to
only to wooden structures that hold signs or placard. "The
word "cross" was
taken directly from the National Park Service's regulation...which
has been in existence since March 18, 1982." Wainstein
when on to state, "The government regrets any
offense that has been taken by such a misunderstanding." Wainstein
explained, "The word "cross" was mentioned in
connection with the word "structures." He continued, "Crosses
historically have typically been made of wood." Wooden
objects, which could potentially be used as weapons, were,
and still are, banned from the parade route.
This
regulation could easily have said, "crossed wooden
structures or wooden sign supports." If minor Washington
bureaucrats become more sensitive to Christians because of
our protests and are more careful with their word choice
in the future then we can mark this one in the victory column! |
