Thursday, October 23, 2014

'Gay Marriage' Ruled Out by Jimmy Carter's Judge

Setting up a path to the Supreme Court concerning same-sex "marriage," United States District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez, who was appointed by President Carter in 1979, ruled that voters of each state (a.k.a. We the People) have the right to define marriage because past U.S. Supreme Court rulings have confirmed this constitutional right.

For background, read Federal Judge Cites Supreme Court Rulings to Support Louisiana Marriage Amendment

And also read about other judges (including appellate) who have ruled in favor of natural marriage saying that there is NO constitutional protection for "gay marriage," but also read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

In addition, read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "Puerto Rico federal court dismisses same-sex marriage lawsuit" by Dale Carpenter, Washington Post 10/21/14

[The judge] dismissed a challenge to Puerto Rico’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. He concluded the outcome was controlled by the Supreme Court’s summary rejection of same-sex marriage claims in Baker v. Nelson in 1972 . . .

The decision does two important things, in addition to denying marriage to same-sex couples in Puerto Rico. First, it puts the First Circuit back in play in the national litigation, although every state in the [New England] circuit already recognizes same-sex marriage. A panel of that court suggested that Baker did indeed bar same-sex marriage constitutional claims in its decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2012. . . .

Second, the issue of Baker‘s effect is actively being considered in other circuits. Most immediately, the Sixth Circuit is already considering a case that turns in part on whether Baker controls. In the Eighth Circuit, a motion to dismiss a same-sex marriage challenge was argued in a South Dakota district court last Friday. (The challenge was brought by my former student Joshua Newville.) And the Fifth Circuit will soon schedule argument in Texas’s appeal from a district court decision striking down that state’s limitation on marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeal Sought in Puerto Rico Gay Marriage Case" by Danica Coto, Associated Press 10/22/14

A federal court judge has rejected an attempt to end a ban on same-sex marriages in Puerto Rico, saying political order itself depends on traditional marriage and deriding the logic of courts that have overturned such bans. The five gay couples who filed the suit will appeal, their attorney said Wednesday.

The couples had challenged the constitutionality of several local laws, including a 1902 code that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Perez-Gimenez questioned the actions of more than two dozen judges on the U.S. mainland who have struck down state same-sex marriage bans following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as U.S. vs. Windsor. That ruling struck down a federal provision that denied several tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples, though it did not declare gay marriage legal nationwide.

Perez-Gimenez wondered in his ruling whether laws prohibiting polygamy and incestuous relations will be questioned now, saying that traditional marriage is essential to society itself.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Democrat-appointed judge rules against Puerto Rico marriage equality" by Gerald Farinas, Chicago Phoenix 10/21/14

The President Jimmy Carter-appointed judge argued that it was not his place to legislate social policy from the bench.

The Puerto Rico legislature passed a definition of marriage that called it “a civil contract whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to become husband and wife.” It was signed into law in 1999.

Lambda Legal filed the case—now probably destined for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It represents LGBT advocacy group Puerto Rico Para Todos and five couples—two seeking to marry in the commonwealth, three seeking to have their U.S. mainland marriages recognized by the commonwealth.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Puerto Rico ban on same-sex marriage upheld" by Lyle Denniston, Reporter, Supreme Court of the United States Blog 10/21/14

Relying mainly on two legal points that federal courts have repeatedly rejected over the past sixteen months, a federal trial judge in San Juan ruled Tuesday that Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage survives constitutional challenge. . . .

Judge Perez-Gimenez focused the first part of his constitutional analysis on the Supreme Court’s summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson forty-two years ago.  In that case, the Court dismissed a gay couple’s appeal seeking a right to marry because, it said, the case did not raise “a substantial federal question.”  That left intact a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in favor of that state’s ban on same-sex unions.

The San Juan jurist said the Supreme Court has never overruled that decision, so it is still binding on lower federal courts . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In passionate ruling, federal judge upholds Puerto Rico’s marriage protection law" by Kirsten Andersen, LifeSiteNews.com 10/22/14

In his 21-page decision, Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez passionately defended true marriage and delivered a scathing rebuke to his colleagues across the nation who have overwhelmingly ruled to overturn state bans on same-sex “marriage” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2013 [United States v. Windsor] ruling striking down key portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In his ruling, Judge Perez-Gimenez acknowledged he is in the minority of judges willing to defend true marriage.  But he had harsh words for the activist courts that have now redefined marriage to include same-sex couples in 32 states.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From: United States District Court - District Of Puerto Rico - Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 57 Filed 10/21/14

Shortly after Puerto Rico became an unincorporated insular territory of the United States . . . was the enactment of the Civil Code of 1902, which included Article 129:
Marriage is a civil institution that emanates from a civil contract by virtue of which a man and a woman are mutually obligated to be husband and wife, and to fulfill for one another all the duties that the law imposes. It will be valid only when it is celebrated and solemnized in accordance with such provisions of law and may only be dissolved before the death of any of the spouses in those instances expressly provided for in this Code.
. . . A revised Code was approved in 1930 that incorporated the 1902 code’s definition of marriage . . . Two amendments were later added but the Code’s original definition of marriage as between “a man and a woman” did not change. This long-standing definition, stretching across two distinct legal traditions, rules out animus as the primary motivation behind Puerto Rico’s marriage laws.

From the time Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States its marriage laws have had the same consistent policy . . . marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, Puerto Rico’s marriage policy is neither unclear nor unsettled.

. . . The plaintiffs have brought this challenge alleging a violation of the federal constitution, so the first place to begin is with the text of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, however, does not directly guarantee a right to same-gender marriage, for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”

. . . the First Circuit has spared us from the misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts. The First Circuit expressly acknowledged – a mere two years ago – that [the Supreme Court decision of] Baker remains binding precedent “unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent.” . . . According to the First Circuit, Baker prevents the adoption of arguments that “presume or rest on a constitution al right to same-sex marriage.” Even creating “a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships” would “imply[ ] an overruling of Baker,” – relief that the First Circuit acknowledged is beyond a lower court’s power to grant. This Court agrees, and even if this Court disagreed, the First Circuit’s decision would tie this Court’s hands no less surely than Baker ties the First Circuit’s hands.

. . . The [2013 Supreme Court] Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same-gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question. . . . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Windsor does not overturn Baker; rather, Windsor and Baker work in tandem to emphasize the States’ “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation” free from “federal intrusion.” . . . It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance – this Court does not venture an answer here – to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage.

. . . Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good law. Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions. Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.

CONCLUSION

That this Court reaches its decision by embracing precedent may prove disappointing. But the role of precedent in our system of adjudication is not simply a matter of binding all succeeding generations to the decision that is first in time. Instead, stare decisis embodies continuity, certainly, but also limitation: there are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.

Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial “wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is “minimal marriage”, where “individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties” the blueprint for their design? . . . It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs’ logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on “the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice.”

Of course, it is all too easy to dismiss such concerns as absurd or of a kind with the cruel discrimination and ridicule that has been shown toward people attracted to members of their own sex. But the truth concealed in these concerns goes to the heart of our system of limited, consent-based government: those seeking sweeping change must render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right.

For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law. This principle is impeded, not advanced, by court decrees based on the proposition that the public cannot have the requisite repose to discuss certain issues. It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds . . . Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people.

To read the entire court ruling above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Battle Seeks Supreme (Court) Savior

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Lawsuit: No Cross-dressing in Conn. Boys Detention

After a 16-year-old male, who has been in state care with a traumatized history since age 5 and who now pretends to be a girl, assaulted staff and fought with girls at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School for girls, he then was relocated to an adult prison for women.  But after another violent outbreak, he was relocated to the Connecticut Juvenile Training School for boys in Middletown, and now attorneys are suing the state child welfare and prison officials demanding an appropriate facility for this violent boy who thinks he's a girl.
". . . it is psychologically damaging and harmful for a transgender female to be placed in a male facility and to be unable to express herself as female."
-- Lawsuit on behalf of Jane Doe
For background, read Transgenderism is a 'Delusion' According to Victim

And also read how public schools indoctrinate children in transsexualism, and read about parents misdirecting toddlers.

-- From "Lawsuit: Detained transgender teen treated as boy" by The Associated Press 10/21/14

A 16-year-old transgender girl being held at a boys' detention center alleged that staff members are repeatedly referring to her by her male birth name and male pronouns, forcing her to wear boys' uniforms and banning her from wearing her wig and makeup.

One of the girl's lawyers, Aaron Romano, criticized the youth agency for what he called inconsistent treatment. He said that while she has been receiving hormone therapy under the agency's care, she's being treated like a boy at the detention center.

The girl's lawyers, state Child Advocate Sarah Eagan and the state chapter of the ACLU have been calling on officials to move her to a more appropriate setting with mental health counseling.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Transgender Youth Accused Of Assaulting Staff In Middletown" by Josh Kovner, The Hartford Courant 7/13/14

A brief statement from DCF said only that the youth, known in court filings as Jane Doe, "assaulted another youth and a staff member at the girls Pueblo Unit and also destroyed state property."

The locked Pueblo unit is on the campus of the former Riverview Children's Hospital in Middletown.

DCF in April won permission from a state judge to transfer the youth to adult prison, citing her history of assaulting staff members in several juvenile treatment settings, including a serious assault against a treatment worker in a Massachusetts facility in late January.

Lawyers for DCF said the department could no longer care for her. The transfer to an adult prison, with no criminal charges pending against the youth, prompted widespread outrage from children's advocates and civil rights groups.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Transgender Girl Moved to Male Facility in Middletown" by Lucy Nalpathanchil, WNPR Connecticut Public Radio 7/14/14

The attorneys for a transgender teen in the custody of Connecticut's Department of Children and Families want a judge to oversee her care. This comes after DCF moved her to an all-boys facility after she allegedly assaulted a youth and staff member over the weekend.

. . . Her case is back in the news after DCF relocated her over the weekend from a psychiatric center for troubled girls to the state's detention center for juvenile boys.

DCF said in a statement on Sunday, "Because there is no suitable place on the Pueblo unit for Jane Doe that can ensure the safety of youth and staff, we have placed her at Connecticut Juvenile Training School in a single room separated from the boys."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge orders Massachusetts to pay for inmate’s sex-change surgery" by Milton J. Valencia, Boston Globe 9/4/12

In the first decision of its kind, a federal judge has ordered state officials to provide a taxpayer-funded sex-change for a transsexual prisoner, after finding that the treatment is the only adequate care for the inmate’s gender identity disorder.

“This fact that sex reassignment surgery is for some people medically necessary has recently become more widely recognized,” [District Court Chief Judge Mark L.] Wolf wrote in a landmark 127-page ruling Tuesday. “Denying adequate medical care because of a fear of controversy or criticism from politicians, the press, and the public serves no legitimate penological purpose. It is precisely the type of conduct the Eighth Amendment prohibits.”

The judge did not say who should perform the surgery or where it should be conducted, leaving those decisions to state officials. The cost of the surgery ranges from $7,000 to more than $50,000, depending on the extent of cosmetic work, according to informational surgery and transgender websites.

It was not clear how much postsurgery care would have to be provided, though the state would bear that cost as well.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read ObamaCare Pays for 'Transgender' Sexual Mutilation — Gay Agenda

And read President Obama's DOJ Forces Girl into Boys Locker Room

Monday, October 20, 2014

Gay Pedophile Teacher Says Child Porn OK to View

After Kurtis Kasner was arrested for child pornography found on his computer under repair, the teacher and author said "I’ve always been fascinated by images of children," and he said that laws prohibiting his proclivities are "overkill."  Kasner admitted to molesting young boys in the 1970s but was never caught, so he taught in elementary schools for over three decades in California before moving on to Washington.
“There were no real people involved and it was just in his head.”
-- Kirkland, Washington police report
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Pedophilia NOT a Crime, Says Obama-supporting Professor

Homosexual Predator, Honored by President Obama, Arrested

Illinois Homosexual Teacher Arrested on Child Porn

Gay Pedophile Teacher Defended by Michigan School

Homosexual Teacher Sexting Boy Resigns, Media Silent

Homosexual Teacher Jailed: Paying Boys to Sext Him

Most Americans Say Gay Men Untrustworthy with Boys

-- From "Police: 72-year-old substitute teacher arrested for possession of child porn" posted at KIRO-TV7 (Seattle, WA) 10/16/14

Kirkland police said the man dropped off his computer be repaired at a Kirkland repair center. A computer technician found what they believed to be photos of child pornography on the computer’s hard drive.

Police identified the suspect as Kurtis Kasner, who is a substitute teacher for the Northshore School District.

Kasner was arrested in the 19400 block of 194th Avenue in Woodinville before 4 p.m.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Northshore substitute teacher arrested for child porn" posted at KING-TV5 (Seattle, WA) 10/16/14

The Northshore School District was notified of the teacher's arrest Thursday. A spokesperson for the district said the suspect has been a district-wide substitute since 2000. Northshore will no longer use his services.

The spokesperson said they hadn't received any reports of questionable conduct by the teacher or reports of incidents with students.

The Kirkland PD Investigation Division and Homeland Security Investigations are handling the case.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Substitute teacher arrested for child porn: ‘I’ve always been fascinated by images of children’" by Lynsi Burton, Seattle Post-Intelligencer 10/16/14

The man teaches elementary-aged children in the Northshore School District, which covers portions of north King County and south Snohomish County, including Bothell. He told police that, even through a 45-year teaching career, he’d been fascinated with child porn his whole life.

The man told police he would never touch or take photos of a child – he only “used his imagination,” reports say -  but sought pornographic images of 10- to 15-year-old children by entering “incest” into a search engine, Kirkland police records say.

The man also admitted that he has “always been fascinated by images of children,” adding that he thought it was a “victimless crime” because there were “no real people involved,” according to reports.

Furthermore, he confessed that in 1976 he touched the genitals of a sleeping 15-year-old boy he was mentoring as part of the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. He also added that around 1979, a boy between ages 11 and 15 “came on to him” and he allowed the boy to sexually gratify him. He said he was “pretty sure” that was the last time he touched a child.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Northshore teacher arrested after child porn found on PC" by Sara Jean Green, Seattle Times staff reporter 10/17/14

Kurtis Kasner was ordered held on $500,000 bail on Thursday and is expected to be formally charged on Monday with possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, Dan Donohoe, a spokesman for King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, said Friday.

. . . a letter was sent home Friday to parents to inform families of Kasner’s arrest and provide police contact information for any parent who believes a child may have had questionable or concerning interactions with Kasner.

According to police, Kasner said he has been looking at images of children all his life and has “always been fascinated” by the images, which he found online by entering “incest” into a search engine, the statement says.

“Kasner stated that he knew it was illegal to view and possess child pornography, but he believed that it was overkill. He stated that the law is there mainly to protect the children that images were taken of, but what is done is done,” the statement says.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Washington state substitute teacher and children's book author arrested on child porn charges" by Nicole Hensley, New York Daily News 10/17/14

The teacher is also the self-published author of a science fiction-fantasy series titled “Through a Hole in the Universe.” The story depicts three boys who discover a mysterious portal in a tree leading to another world.

The story was published in 1999, but its manuscript was drafted as far back as 1969 when he taught at Newcomb Elementary School in Long Beach, California, according to a cached profile on Kasner published by the Woodinville Weekly.

He retired before moving to Washington state where he passed a background check and worked at least 100 to 120 hours a year in classrooms for third to sixth-grade students . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Pedophilia is Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay' and also read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists

And read Judge Says Incest OK; It's the New Gay

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'

Donald and Evelyn Knapp, owners of The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, have filed a federal lawsuit against the city for unconstitutionally forcing them to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
“The Knapps are thus under a constant, coercive and substantial threat to violate their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal fines for declining to speak a message and perform a wedding service that contradicts their religious beliefs and ministerial vows.”
-- Lawsuit filed by Coeur d’Alene attorney Virginia McNulty Robinson, in partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Houston Lesbian Mayor Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons

North Carolina Christian Loses Job: Refuses Same-sex 'Wedding'

American Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin in Scotland

Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime

Supreme Court Rules Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada

European Union High Court Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity

Also read Pentagon Says Christians Who Oppose Gay Agenda are 'Hate Groups'

In addition, read about states passing religious liberty laws to protect citizens and their businesses from lawsuits by homosexualists and/or fines by courts, and to ensure the free practice of religion without government interference.

So what is this ObamaNation?  It's a 'Fake Church,' Says Catholic Cardinal

http://www.kxly.com/news/north-idaho-news/hitching-post-files-lawsuit-to-prevent-performing-samesex-marriages/29245798
Click here for local TV news video, and also see video of the Coeur d'Alene City Attorney Warren Wilson assuring prosecution of pastors.

-- From "Hitching Post sues Coeur d’Alene after declining to marry gay couple" by Nina Culver, The Spokesman-Review 10/17/14

The city passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2013. It applies to housing, employment and “public accommodation.” Religious entities are exempt from the ordinance. But in May city attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review that The Hitching Post, which is a for-profit business, likely would be required to follow the ordinance.

According to the lawsuit, a man called the business Friday to ask about a same-sex wedding ceremony and was turned down. The Knapps are now asking for a temporary restraining order against the city to stop it from enforcing the ordinance. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.

The city’s ordinance is a violation of the couple’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights along with a violation of the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, the lawsuit said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail" by Ryan T. Anderson, The Daily Signal 10/18/14

The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New America: Ordained ministers threatened with jail unless they perform same sex marriages" by Rick Moran, American Thinker 10/19/14

City officials in Coeur d'Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.

The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs.

How many other towns and cities have statutes like this? No doubt there are other budding fascists out there who would enjoy putting Christian ministers in jail for not violating the sacred tenets of their faith.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Can ministers who make a living by conducting weddings be required to conduct same-sex weddings?" by Eugene Volokh, Washington Post 10/18/14

Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion. Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)

And I find it hard to see a compelling government interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination by ministers officiating in a chapel. Whatever interests there may be in equal access to jobs, to education, or even in most public accommodations, I don’t see how there would be a “compelling” government interest in preventing discrimination in the provision of ceremonies, especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.

Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

And read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Delaware School to Atheists: No Praying Allowed

After the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation complained to Cape Henlopen School District that a coach had been spotted in the vicinity of a few praying student athletes, Superintendent Robert Fulton wrote to the atheists assuring them that no longer will there be any possible appearance of school employees anywhere near somebody in prayer.
I can assure you that our employees, including coaches, will be reminded of laws involving the Separation of Church and State and will respond accordingly so that an objective/reasonable observer will not perceive their actions as endorsing religion in the future.
-- Robert S. Fulton, M.S. Ed
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Oklahoma School Assures Wisconsin Atheists: No Praying Coaches Here

Maine Church Leaders Agree with Atheists: No Prayer Allowed with Students

Thousands of Citizens vs. Atheists: Prayer at Florida Football

Tennessee Cheerleaders Defy Atheist-forced Prayer Ban

North Carolinians Pray at School, Defying Wisconsin Atheists

Georgia Citizens & School Team Up vs. Anti-Prayer Atheists

Also read Most Americans Support Prayer in School: Poll

In addition, read Atheists Threaten to Sue Every School in Tennessee and in Mississippi but admit they're Short on Lawyers to Sue ALL Christians

-- From "Cape football prayer gets flagged" by Leigh Giangreco, Delmarva Daily Times 10/17/14

Two students on the team led the prayer, while coach Bill Collick participated, according to the [FFRF] foundation. Collick serves as both football coach and dean of students for the high school. . . .

The foundation is asking the district to investigate a possible separation of church and state violation but is not planning any legal action.

[Daniel Conkle, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, poses the question,] “Can [the coach] stand at the back of the room? At what point does the coach take a posture that he’s endorsing or promoting the prayer?”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cape Henlopen School District responds to question about what appeared to be post-game prayer" by Mark Fowser, WXDE-105.9FM (Delaware) 10/17/14


The letter from Superintendent Robert Fulton was sent to a Staff Attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The organization informed the district last week of its concerns about a photograph after a recent football game that appeared to show football coach Bill Collick and some players taking part in a post-game prayer, and raising questions about whether it was a constitutional violation.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "A kind word for Coach Collick" posted at Delaware Cape Gazette 10/17/14

Cape Henlopen High School football coach Bill Collick stood at the edge of a group of players on their knees in a post­game prayer recently. Sports Editor Dave Frederick, a friend of Collick’s and himself a coach of long standing, caught the scene with his camera. When the Cape Gazette published the photograph ­- in print and online - it captured the attention of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, dedicated to keeping religion and public functions separate.

Coach Collick didn’t organize, lead, or require the prayer. To the contrary, he exercised his own constitutional right to join this peaceful assembly. He was being supportive, and that’s what good coaches do. And Coach Collick is a good coach. He serves as a positive role model through his professional and positive demeanor on the field and in the hallways of Cape Henlopen High School as an administrator. He keeps students engaged, who might otherwise not be, and on the right track.

To read the entire editorial above, CLICK HERE.

Also read U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of public prayer, and read the resulting resurgence in public prayer following the Supreme Court decision including the long list of states enacting laws to bring prayer back to schools.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Obama Pays Pre-teens to Learn Anal Sex in Hawaii

Public middle school students are being paid as much as $20 in gift cards by the University of Hawaii Center on Disability Studies to participate in homosexual indoctrination courses funded by the Pono Choices program from a grant of $5 million by U.S. Office of Adolescent Health, according to President Obama's U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
“Paying to be brainwashed so you will consent to pay more to have your children brainwashed is not a good use of tax dollars.”
-- Representative Bob McDermott
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

President Obama Wants an End to Abstinence, Favors Anal Sex

Anal Sex is Main Cause of HIV Pandemic, Study Shows

October is Homosexual Indoctrination Month in Schools Nationwide

White House Says Gay Recruitment of Kids Successful

Also read the history of President Obama's Gay Agenda for Schools

In addition, read how public schools integrate pornography and sex training into the curriculum and also read the myriad examples of kids' sexcapades starting in kindergarten and even pre-school.

-- From "Gift cards rewarded to children who participate in Hawaii sex ed program" by Jessica Chasmar, The Washington Times 10/15/14

The taxpayer-funded gift cards are issued to 11-, 12- and 13-year-olds who participate in the program, which teaches about anal and homosexual sex, as well as other sexual behaviors.

Republican Rep. Bob McDermott led the charge to pressure the state Board of Education to pull the curriculum, which succeeded briefly until the program was revised and reinstated over the summer.

“This is a shameless manipulation of the data — giving 11-year-old kids a $10 dollar gift card, and then asking them how they liked the program,” Mr. McDermott said, Watchdog.org reported. “Hawaii’s parents are in the unique situation of having their own tax dollars used to propagandize the ‘value’ of this deceptive intrusion into their public schools, to ‘sell’ them on a program they didn’t ask for and don’t want.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Hawaii students get gift cards to participate in sex education program" by Malia Zimmerman, Hawaii Reporter 10/14/14

The curriculum, developed by the University of Hawaii Center on Disability Studies, set off a firestorm over the past year. Some parents and lawmakers said the program, which taught children as young as age 11 about anal and homosexual sex, was inaccurate and inappropriate.

Rep. Bob McDermott, R-Aiea, who has a 12-year-old son in public school, led the charge to pressure the state Board of Education to pull the curriculum. He accused the DOE of “normalizing homosexual lifestyles” and “putting students at risk by withholding critical facts.”

After pressure from McDermott and the public, the DOE pulled the curriculum and formed a task force to review concerns. The task force released 11 new recommendations on June 6 and stopped the implementation of the program until developers addressed the concerns and inaccuracies. The program was reinstated over the summer.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Focuses Government on the One Percenters of America -- the Homosexuals

And read President Obama's Homosexual Easter at the White House

In addition, read American Decline: Obama's Gay Agenda vs. Christians

Thursday, October 16, 2014

NC Christian Loses Job: Refuses Same-sex 'Wedding'

Days ago, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn overturned the will of North Carolina voters by instituting "gay marriage" in the state.  Immediately two men showed up in Pasquotank County to be "married," but magistrate Gary Littleton refused to perform the ceremony based on his religious conscience.  As a result, Littleton will no longer be a magistrate because of, it is said, year-old charges against him for fighting at a youth football game — charges that were dismissed after an investigation.

UPDATE 10/19/14: Idaho Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

New York Christian Farmers Guilty & Fined over 'Gay Wedding'

Homosexualists Force Pro-marriage Internet CEO Resignation

Iowa Christian Newspaper Editor, Fired over Gay Agenda Critique

Christian Sports Commentator Fired for Supporting Natural Marriage

D.C. University Suspends Christian for Defending Marriage

California University Fires Scientist for Being Christian

California City Official Yanked: Caught Reading Bible



-- From "NC magistrates directed to marry gay couples" by Michael Biesecker, Associated Press 10/15/14

Pamela Weaver Best, general counsel for the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, sent a letter to state magistrates saying they would be violating their oaths of office if they refused to marry gay or lesbian couples.

Best said magistrates who refuse to marry gay couples face suspension or dismissal. They could also face misdemeanor criminal charges for failing to discharge their duties.

Magistrates are state employees, but are directly supervised by the chief district court judges in the county where they are appointed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Magistrate who refused gay marriage to leave" by Jeff Hampton, The Virginian-Pilot 10/16/14

Gary Littleton, 56, was charged with assault and communicating threats a year ago in Camden County. The charges were dismissed after an inquiry by the State Bureau of Investigation.

Chief District Judge Christopher Bean said Littleton will not be reappointed based on the charges because court officials are held to a higher standard.

There are no plans to dismiss Littleton immediately over his refusal to marry Randall Jackson and William Locklear on Monday. No complaints had been filed against Littleton as of late Wednesday, Bean said.

Littleton has been a magistrate since 2003. Magistrates are typically appointed to four-year terms with a starting annual salary of $33,000, according to the North Carolina General Assembly website. Littleton earns about $45,000 annually based on the pay scale.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alamance County same-sex couple weds after 32 years" by Michael D. Abernethy, The Times-News (Burlington, NC) 10/13/14


After voters passed Amendment One in 2012 — altering the state’s constitution to make opposite-sex marriage the only legally recognized union — [but Friday] a federal judge in Asheville ruled the state’s ban unconstitutional. . . .

[Alamance County Register of Deeds Hugh] Webster said “about half” of his employees stated they are uncomfortable filling out and accepting marriage licenses for same-sex couples . . .

Chief District Court Judge Jim Roberson said he addressed the magistrates’ concerns Monday. Alamance County has 11 magistrates

“As a team, we’re going to abide by the law,” Roberson said. “Some of our magistrates have concerns based on their faiths and religious beliefs. I completely respect that. Other magistrates do not.”

He said magistrates who are comfortable officiating same-sex ceremonies will be made available to perform those ceremonies if those already working aren’t comfortable with it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pasquotank magistrate refused to perform same-sex marriage" by Erin Kelly, WAVY-TV10 (Portsmouth, VA) 10/14/14

“My understanding is that a couple came and asked to be married and he refused to marry them based upon his, I guess, religious or moral principles,” [Judge] Bean said. ” … I suppose that it can be construed that he broke the law because that is a duty that the magistrate has, to perform marriages. I think, though, you have to temper that a little bit with the confusion and the quickness of all of this.”

Bean said Littleton could possibly be removed from his position if someone files a formal complaint and a judge makes that decision.

Another magistrate, Leonardo Custis, said he later married the two men who were first turned away on Tuesday morning.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "NC couple wed after initial denial by magistrate" by The Associated Press 10/15/14

Pasquotank County Magistrate Gary Littleton refused Monday to marry Williams Locklear and Randall Jackson.

Littleton cited his religious views that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

[Judge] Bean said the court system has only one potential punishment for magistrates who violate the state’s code of judicial conduct: removal from office.

Jackson said that he and Locklear do not plan to file [a complaint]. “I think Mr. Littleton has learned a valuable lesson,” and should not refuse to wed gay couples moving forward.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.