News: Check out Columbus Townhall's new bookstore: http://bookstore.columbustownhall.com/
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
May 18, 2012, 10:11:40 PM
*

Recent

Your Info

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2012, 10:11:40 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Statistics

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 40602
  • Total Topics: 5158
  • Online Today: 18
  • Online Ever: 252
  • (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 19
Total: 19

Links

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Topic: Democracy & Gay Marriage  (Read 650 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
« on: July 06, 2004, 05:22:16 PM »
dain Offline
Verified Member
CTH Professor

*****
Reputation: +1/-0
Posts: 3609




Ignore

Marriage gets a boost in Michigan
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 6, 2004

Supporters of traditional marriage in Michigan yesterday turned in some 475,000 signatures -- far more than the 317,000 needed -- to put a state constitutional amendment before the voters in November.
    The measure, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is intended to block efforts to legalize same-sex "marriage" in the state.
    "The people responded," Marlene Elwell, president of Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, said yesterday. "They're tired of politicians and activist judges making changes without having a voice. This gives them a voice."
    The Board of State Canvassers' office in Lansing was kept open yesterday to receive the signatures. About 200 campaign volunteers helped deliver the boxes of petitions.
    Some volunteers worked over the Independence Day holiday to gather signatures. Others, like Becky Fettig, county coordinator for Emmit County in northern Michigan, turned theirs in late last week.
    "We were hoping to get at least 400,000 signatures as a cushion," Mrs. Fettig said yesterday. Getting more than 475,000 "is great news," she said.
    Opponents of the marriage amendment said yesterday they would work to keep it off the ballot.
    The amendment would end domestic-partner benefits in places such as the city of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, said Wendy Howell, spokeswoman for the Coalition for a Fair Michigan.
    The text of the proposed amendment says: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose."
    Michigan's achievement marks a four-for-four victory for those who want marriage amendments on the November ballot.
    On June 18, Montana advocates turned in more than 70,000 signatures -- far more than the 41,020 needed -- for their marriage amendment.
    On June 30, two days early, supporters in Oregon turned in 244,000 petition signatures, more than twice the 100,840 signatures needed.
    On July 1, one day early, supporters in Arkansas turned in 200,693 petition signatures -- more than twice the 80,650 they needed.
    Pro-marriage activists in two more states -- North Dakota and Ohio -- are collecting signatures for amendments, with their deadlines falling in early August.
    If all these campaigns succeed, 13 states will have amendments to define marriage on ballots this year, with seven states already having amendments passed by lawmakers.
    Missouri's amendment will be voted on first, in that state's primary election Aug. 3. Louisiana voters are next, with a vote Sept. 18.
    The other states -- Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah -- will vote on their amendments in the Nov. 2 general election.
    Homosexual-rights groups have pledged to work to defeat all these amendments at the polls.
    The amendments would "write discrimination" into a state constitution, say leaders of groups such as Basic Rights Oregon, Triangle Foundation in Michigan and Montanans for Families and Fairness.
    The Oregon amendment signatures are the most filed with the state ever for a single ballot measure, an election official told reporters.
    Support for the Oregon amendment came in response to Multnomah County officials who issued 3,022 "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples in the spring. Registration of those licenses is on appeal, pending a lawsuit.
    The petitioners also have been galvanized by the Goodridge court decision in Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state as of May 17.
    It took about 3,000 volunteers 93 days to collect the signatures, Jerry Cox, president of the Arkansas Marriage Amendment Committee, said at a press conference at the state Capitol on Thursday.
    "The people of Arkansas have spoken," he said. "They would rather define marriage at the ballot box this November than have some judge or court do it for them."
Logged
"Men are qualified for civil liberties in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites....Men of intemperate minds cannot be free." [/i][/font] Edmund Burke
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2004, 08:59:21 AM »
dain Offline
Verified Member
CTH Professor

*****
Reputation: +1/-0
Posts: 3609




Ignore

Yes!  Let's hope we can do something like this in Ohio...support the petitiion drive!

__________________________________________________
Missouri marriage amendment wins handily
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published August 4, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state constitutional amendment to define marriage in Missouri as the union of a man and woman cruised to a lopsided victory last night.
    With 51 percent of precincts reporting last night, the amendment had received 659,267 "yes" votes to 251,754 "no" votes -- a margin of 72 percent to 28 percent.

    "We're very gratified, encouraged and thankful" for the vote, said Vicky Hartzler of the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri. "Here in the heartland, we've sent a message to the rest of the nation that we value marriage, and we want it to be protected from legal challenges. It's 'we, the people,' not 'we, the courts.' "
    The Family Research Council also hailed last night's "win for traditional marriage in Missouri," the nation's first popular vote on homosexual "marriage" since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized the unions in that state in November.
    "Citizens from all across the Show Me State have shown once again that when the people's voice is not muted by unelected judges, they speak out soundly in support of marriage as it has always been traditionally defined," said Tony Perkins, council president.
    Pro-family groups scored two other victories yesterday, with activists in North Dakota and Ohio saying that they had collected enough signatures to put state constitutional amendments against homosexual "marriage" on their ballots.
    The amendment had been leading in newspaper public-opinion polls, with from 56 percent to 62 percent support. But opponents of homosexual "marriage" were helped to an even bigger triumph by a heavy turnout, which was projected at more than 40 percent of registered voters -- compared with 25 percent in the 2002 state primary.
     Turnout was also boosted by a hotly contested Democratic gubernatorial battle between incumbent Gov. Bob Holden and state Auditor Claire McCaskill.
    Opponents of the amendment, arguing that Missouri law already prohibits same-sex "marriage" in the state and disallows recognition of same-sex "marriages" from other states, recently had blitzed the state with ads asking voters not to support such a "mean-spirited" amendment.
    "We're already reaching out to these other states, sharing with them what we learned, what worked, what didn't work, and we'll move on," said Doug Gray, campaign manager for the Constitution Defense League.
    "Ultimately, we're right and they're simply wrong," he said.
    The Missouri amendment would change the state constitution to say, "To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."
    Yesterday's amendment vote was viewed by both sides as a bellwether for as many as 12 other states that will vote on marriage amendments in this political season.
    The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual rights group, sent more than $100,000 to the Constitution Defense League in Missouri.
    "Missouri is the first one," said Seth Kilbourn, national field director of the Human Rights Campaign. "It's really important that the gay and lesbian community and our allies wage as strong a campaign as we can to send a strong message to the other campaigns that are going on out there."
    Mr. Perkins of the Family Research Council said that "in the months ahead, marriage may be on the ballot in at least a dozen other states."
    "We believe today's win for traditional marriage in Missouri will prove to be just one of many victories for marriage this fall."
    Meanwhile yesterday, the North Dakota Family Alliance said it had collected almost 52,000 signatures -- more than double the 25,688 needed -- to put a marriage amendment on that state's November ballot.
    "I never had any anxiety in regards to collecting the signatures," said Christina Kindel, director of the Bismarck-based Family Alliance.
    In Ohio, leaders of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage turned in about 391,000 signatures yesterday, more than the 323,000 needed.
    Activist judges are trying to redefine marriage, and an amendment "must be passed in Ohio in order to keep activists from destroying this cornerstone of society," said Phil Burress, president of the Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values, which supports the amendment.

    Homosexual "marriage" emerged as a national issue in November, when the Massachusetts justices, by a 4-3 vote, ruled that their state constitution gave homosexuals the right to "marry."
    Homosexual couples began "marrying" in that state on May 17, and many observers think it is inevitable that same-sex "marriage" will expand because of the custom that marriages in one state are recognized in all others.
    Already, a lesbian couple from Florida who "married" in Massachusetts in July has filed a federal lawsuit seeking recognition of their union by the federal government and by Florida.
    The issue is divisive among Americans: Although a minority approve of homosexual "marriage" as an overdue expansion of civil rights, more Americans see it as a radical, and even profane, redefinition of a sacred institution.
    Missouri's amendment, as in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah, was first passed by lawmakers. Louisiana's vote is next, on Sept. 18, and the rest are on Nov. 2.
    Amendment supporters in Montana, Arkansas and Oregon have succeeded in their petition drives to get marriage amendments on the November ballots. Supporters in Michigan are awaiting verification of signatures.
    Four states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada -- already have amended their state constitutions, including through state referendums, to disallow any other marriages but those between one man and one woman.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/p...04-120544-8709r
Logged
"Men are qualified for civil liberties in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites....Men of intemperate minds cannot be free." [/i][/font] Edmund Burke
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2009, 02:12:27 PM »
Vocal Observer Offline
Verified Member
CTH Associate Professor

*****
Reputation: +18/-0
Posts: 1971




Ignore

Give some an emotional win and deny 1st amendment rights and care to those in need.

Same-sex marriage law in D.C. could ‘suppress’ Catholic institutions, archdiocese warns
Quote
Washington D.C., Nov 1, 2009 / 03:10 am (CNA).- A Washington, D.C. City Council proposal to recognize same-sex “marriage” would redefine marriage and could force Catholic educational and charitable institutions to close or face lawsuits, burdensome regulation and the compromising of their faith, the Archdiocese of Washington has warned.

The proposed law, called the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, redefines marriage as “the legally recognized union of two people.” It says a religious association or a non-profit associated with a religion shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs unless the entity makes those services available to members of the general public.

Representatives of the archdiocese spoke at an Oct. 26 hearing before the D.C. City Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. They argued that the law would endanger Catholic services to the general public.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17550
Logged
The Principle of Subsidiarity
Repeal the 17th Amendment

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." - Th. Jefferson

Oh yea... Run Paul Run!
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2009, 08:22:20 AM »
Ideological Sceptic Offline
CTH Associate Professor

****
Reputation: +5/-41
Posts: 1519




Ignore

Same-sex marriage law in D.C. could ‘suppress’ Catholic institutions, archdiocese warns
Quote
Washington D.C., Nov 1, 2009 / 03:10 am (CNA).- A Washington, D.C. City Council proposal to recognize same-sex “marriage” would redefine marriage and could force Catholic educational and charitable institutions to close or face lawsuits


Any one interested in language and linguistics would find these two sentences interesting.

The word 'suppress' is in single quotes. The word 'marriage' is in double quotes in the phrase 'same-sex marriage' and then 'marriage' is left unquoted in the phrase 'redefine marriage'.

This mish mash leads to confusion as evidenced by the rest of the article.
Logged
Critically and Intelligently Engage All Ideas

Ignoring ideas is Never an Option

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines