Judge Walker is Gay? Proposition 8 Case Ruling Impartiality in Question

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the judge presiding over the Proposition 8 appeal, Judge Vaughn Walker, is gay:

“The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.”


If that is true, it would explain a lot.  Why was Judge Walker so eager to break federal court rules against televising hearings?  Why was he so eager to deny the defense their first amendment rights by trying to force them to disclose private campaign documents?

Twice now, higher courts have had to intervene in Judge Walker’s court proceedings to check his enthusiasm for tipping the scales of justice.

Could Judge Walker being gay himself have any bearing on his decisions?  We’ll never know.  As one commenter on this story said:

“He should have recused himself, just to avoid the image of impropriety. As it is, people will always wonder, and assume he made those bad judgments out of an inappropriate personal bias.”

Certainly a judge’s personal life and choices do not HAVE to interfere with his impartiality, however it certainly does color the appearance of his decision.

History will always question his judgment and wonder.  No matter what side of the issue you fall on, this information does nothing but cast doubt on the legitimacy of this court and its proceedings.

—Beetle Blogger

Perry v Schwarzenegger: Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial

Photo: Norman Rockwell–Freedom of Worship

Religion, Family, Democracy— On Trial

The endless parade has come to a halt.  Painfully, yet colorfully, we’ve all watched the emotional train wreck unfold over these last several weeks.  Here and there bits of sanity reigned, but by and large raw, pity driven emotion ran the day.

Thankfully all binge parties must have an end and this one is no exception.  Finally, Judge Vaughn Walker’s courtroom theatrics and baldface shenanigans  have come to a close.  All that remains are 30 days of preparation, the final arguments and the ruling.

No matter which way Judge Walker rules, his feckless reign will not ultimately hold sway.  The fate of proposition 8 will end up in the hands of the United States Supreme Court; a judicial body, I might add, in which I have infinitely more faith.

Is there any question how Judge Walker will rule?  He’s made his bias clear every chance he got.  The better question is, what will the Supreme Court think of his antics?  Somehow I don’t imagine they will look kindly on the abuse and mockery Judge Walker has made of the judicial system, thumbing his nose at basic freedoms, federal judicial practice and common decency.  He may have won small points with the Oprah crowd, but the Supreme Court is not populated by Jerry Springer and Judge Judy. These are men and women who know the constitution, and the  intent of its creators to protect the rights and liberties of all men with regard to personal belief:

That religion, and the duty which we owe to our CREATOR,  and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other.”  —James Madison, Virginia Declaration

The bottom line is no one has the right to put religion, family or democracy on trial.  These are freedoms and rights that are truly inalienable.  All men are equal.  No spurious claim to special rights can supersede the rights we all share in common.

—Beetle Blogger

See this from Ron Prentice, the executive director of protectmarriage.com.

The live testimony in the federal trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the historic court battle over the definition of marriage, finally came to a close yesterday afternoon.
Our lead trial attorney Charles Cooper and the rest of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a superb job defending the will of the voters and the institution of marriage itself under extremely difficult circumstances in this San Francisco courtroom. As we consistently saw in most of the critical pre-trial rulings, virtually all of Judge Vaughn Walker’s significant rulings during the trial went against us.
For example, Judge Walker’s insistent efforts to broadcast the trial proceedings worldwide on the internet, in violation of federal laws, caused two-thirds of our expert witnesses to withdraw from the case just before the trial started. Quite understandably, these experts were fearful of the likely harassment and retribution they would suffer, personally and professionally, if their live testimony was broadcast worldwide as Judge Walker had ordered. As the trial started, the cameras were still rolling and there was no way to guarantee the witnesses that their testimony would not be broadcast. Even though the US Supreme Court later overruled Judge Walker and prohibited the broadcasting of this case, it was too late.
The loss of four witnesses put tremendous added pressure on our team of defense attorneys to find other ways to get our critical evidence into the record. So during over 30 hours of our cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, our attorneys succeeded in moving key studies, statistics, reports and other evidence into the record, and obtaining critical concessions from the other side’s witnesses on many subjects, such as child-rearing and monogamy. Thankfully, our legal team was extremely successful in this regard.
After weeks of 20+ hour days, our attorneys finally were able to get a good night’s rest. We appreciate your prayers for them and your words of encouragement. Starting today, they will be working for the next 30 days to submit additional briefings to the judge. They will also start preparing to go back before Judge Walker sometime in March to present final closing arguments. And then we will await the court’s ruling.
No matter how Judge Walker rules, all sides agree that this is just the first stage in a much longer journey that will ultimately end at the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter which side wins this first legal test, the case is surely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and eventually to the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even though the live testimony has ended, we must continue our efforts to secure the resources needed for a strong legal defense of Prop 8. Please help us with your own contribution, and forward this email to your friends and colleagues who themselves might make a donation. Our outstanding legal bills are substantial and the ongoing fight will be expensive.
Every person involved in our legal defense has made tremendous sacrifices. Lead trial counsel Charles Cooper and his team from the Cooper & Kirk law firm have done a spectacular job. Special thanks is also due to the excellent attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund who donated literally thousands of hours of legal work as part of the defense team.
In particular, we are also extremely grateful to our own General Counsel, Andy Pugno, whose wife is due to deliver their third child any day now. Not only has he worked tirelessly for months on end and represented us ably in the courtroom, his entire family has paid a price as Andy has been fighting for the institution of marriage. We owe him, and his family, a debt of gratitude.
Below is a statement Andy released to the media late yesterday about the case. It’s an excellent summary of how this show trial unfolded.
Today concluded the presentation of evidence in the federal trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, challenging Prop 8’s definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman. Our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team did a remarkable job in defending the will of over 7 million California voters who passed it into law.
What may be lost in all the sensationalism of the past two and a half weeks of trial is that the burden of proof to invalidate Prop 8 lies squarely with the plaintiffs. They cannot win unless they prove that the voters were “irrational” when they chose to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in our state. Contrary to their public relations claims, the outcome of this case does not depend on whether the Prop 8 sponsors can prove that homosexual marriage will harm traditional
marriage. The controlling legal issue is not whether homosexual marriage is good or bad, but rather whether the people have the right to decide what is best. The plaintiffs simply did not carry that burden.
Meanwhile, we have shown that limiting marriage to its longstanding definition is rational because marriage benefits children, not just the adults. Whenever possible, it is best for a child to have both a mother and a father. And man-woman marriage is the only human relationship that can biologically serve that distinctive purpose. A same-sex relationship can never offer a child both a
mother and father. It’s that simple.
The plaintiffs put on a spectacular show-trial of irrelevant evidence, calling to the stand many “expert” witnesses to testify that allowing homosexual marriage would: help local governments raise more tax revenues, help gay and lesbian couples to accumulate greater wealth, and improve the self-esteem of homosexuals. But those are political arguments for society to consider, not legal
support for the claim that the US Constitution contains the right to homosexual marriage. The courtroom is simply not the proper forum for what is clearly a social, not a legal, appeal.
Thank you for your continued help through prayer, financial support, encouragement, and spreading the word. We – all of us – are responsible for the shape of our society when we hand it off to future generations.
Ron Prentice, Executive Director

I Am A Mother. A Tale of Two Views

I Am A Mother.

As I was reading through NOM blog today, I came across these two posts by women on opposite ends of the marriage debate.  Their heartfelt takes on marriage and what it means really impressed me.  In particular, they are both powerful, emotional statements, yet worlds apart in focus:

“I am a citizen, who desires nothing more than any other citizen. I want children for the exact same reasons any heterosexual does. I want to be married for the exact same reasons any heterosexual does.

I can’t change who I am, or who I fall in love with any more than you can, and I should just accept I’ll never have the same thing as my sister or brother, who are heterosexual?

And because of people like you, my partner and I will probably have a harder time raising our son than you would your children.

The only reason a child would think any less of his or her family would be because people like you do.

Good night, and I really hope none of your children are gay. If they are, make sure and tell them early on why they shouldn’t ever be able to marry. It’ll be easier on them in the long-run.”  —Marci


When I dated, I chose who I made relationships with. I chose who I would live my life with. No one took those choices from me. Because of my choices, my children will have a mom and a dad, and I will work every day to make sure it stays that way because my children need a mom and a dad. I would never deny a child what they are entitled to simply because of my own selfish wants and desires. Children have rights too, rights that can’t be denied simply because they don’t fit a certain parent’s sexual desires. I am prepared to teach my children by example what a family is, and You can bet I will make sure that they know, if they are not prepared to give a child the things they need in life, they ought not be bringing those children into the world. I am a mom, and because I’m a mom, the needs of my children surpass my petty wants. That is a sacrifice I’m willing to make a thousand times over, and one we should comit to as a society. Every child needs a mom and a dad. Death and divorce aside, we should do everything we can to give them the best chance possible to have that in their lives.”  —Sandee

I thought the response to Marci’s letter was singularly powerful.  One letter focused on the writer, what the writer wanted, what the writer felt, and children were an accessory to that.  The other writer’s focus is on her family, her children and what makes a family.

Two mothers. Two world views.

The first takes no responsibility, the second is the embodiment of responsibility.

It was a poignant example of the very basis of disagreement in the marriage debate, excellently articulated by two of society’s mothers.

—Beetle Blogger

Iowa Next?

The good folks of Iowa had their marriage law turned upside down by a handful of activist judges in 2009.  That one sided and ill constructed decision has the power to single handedly change the  landscape in Iowa as Iowans seek to restore the status of the family in their state.   Amending the Iowan Constitution is the single best legal and legislative option for a reversal and the sooner the better.

Iowa activists want gay marriage on agenda

“Hurley said members of his group will attend (Governor) Culver’s annual Condition of the State speech on Jan. 12 to mark a “two days for marriage” initiative pushing to overturn the court’s decision.

Culver has said he favors marriage as being between one woman and one man but that he won’t support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Democrats control both legislative chambers and argue that the state’s budget crunch has forced them to shorten the upcoming session, leaving no time for a debate over marriage.

Amending the Iowa Constitution is a long process requiring approval in two consecutive general assemblies and a statewide vote. If lawmakers this year don’t act on the issue, the soonest it could be on the ballot would be the general election of 2014.”


Governor Culver and a few leaders in the democrat controlled State House and Senate have started lining up against marriage and families, but with current political events, perhaps they need to rethink their position.

If marriage can win handily in liberal bastions like California, Maine, New York and New Jersey… what does Iowa have to fear?  The governor there could put up a formidable veto, but at what political cost to him and his party?

Gay activists have not been able to make a convincing case to the people.  Relying heavily on intimidation and force, their faulty rhetoric fails every time when brought honestly to the arena of ideas.  The heat is on nationally, and every eye seems to be turned to the next state in the lineup against marriage.  If politicians think this isn’t going to have an effect on their careers they are not paying attention.

In the past pro-family candidates may have been able to rely on the public’s good natured amnesia and willingness to turn the other cheek when they strayed from pro-family support, but no more.  The field has changed and the stakes are high.  The consequences are becoming more evident for those who support family in name only.  It is no secret that every time the choice has come to the people, families have prevailed.

Marriage is worth the fight.  Bring the issue to the people.

—Beetle Blogger

Newspaper Purges Reporter AND WIFE From Payroll After Gay Activists Complain About Reporter’s Pro-Family Opinions

Photo: Norman Rockwell 1943

“A Maine reporter is combating his termination after he says he was fired from his job for issuing a personal email rebutting a homosexualist group’s defamation of true marriage advocates.

Fed up with the accusations of “hate” leveled at marriage advocates throughout the campaign, Grard says he wrote an email from his personal email account to Thomas that read: “Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd.  You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began.  Good riddance!”  —Lifesite News

WOW.  Now that’s hateful right?  And they not only fired this guy for this personal email where he gave his personal opinions, they fired his wife too! Now that’s classy!

Some in the gay lobby are trying to distance themselves from this blatant effort to punish family supporters for their views on marriage.  They say, “Oh you can’t blame gay activists for this!  It’s the paper’s blunder!”

I say, the gay activists are exactly who are to blame for this. They’re the ones supporting policies that encourage treatment of any other opinion but their own as homophobia or bigoted bias. This is a clear example of what we fought against in California. I saw the same things coming up in Maine and now in DC. It’s the paper’s fault yes, they stepped in it, but the ideas behind what they did are being promoted in campaigns supported by the gay lobby.

This is exactly what freedom of speech is about.  It’s about being free.

Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people — whoever they may be — must at all costs not be offended, then you have destroyed one of the essential elements of free speech and political debate. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to force their neighbor to be silent if his opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America..…wherever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified.”  —Robert Spencer

A friend of mine posted this information:

I just left a message on the Editor’s voice mail. Will follow up with an email tomorrow. What do you say we make this a national story, folks? Let’s start by calling the newspaper and letting the editor know what we think of reporters being fired for expressing their private opinions in private emails!

To contact Maine Today Media:
Editor Bill Thompson: bthompson@mainetoday.com
Morning Sentinel main line: 207-873-3341…

We have to stand up and stick together to support our freedoms.  This man and his wife are being wrongfully persecuted for his beliefs.  He wasn’t rude, or improper in any way.  He simply had a difference of opinion and that could not be tolerated.

This is the road we’re heading down if gay activists get their way. Fight it wherever you see it.

—Beetle Blogger

Read the entire story, get mad, and then do something about it:

Maine Reporter Fired for Personal E-mail Rebutting Criticisms of Traditional Marriage Supporters

Follow-up:  Maine Reporter: I Was Fired Over Anti-Same-Sex Marriage E-mail

NOM: What Happened Behind the Scenes in New York

Dear Marriage Supporter:

What a week! What a great victory for marriage in New York!

Rumors were rampant that gay marriage was going to pass in New York. The night before the vote I got an urgent alert call from an Albany insider reporting that gay marriage was a done deal in New York! News blogs said that Democrat State Sen. Ruben Diaz, the leader of the pro-marriage forces in New York, was visibly upset after the Democratic caucus; Sen. Diaz told reporters he was going into his office to pray. How the bloggers made fun of this great Christian man for that!–as if his prayer was somehow proof that gay marriage was inevitable in New York.

Let me tell you, we were all praying pretty hard at that point!

I didn’t see how the New York State Sen. Tom Duane or the Empire State Pride Agenda was going to pull this one off: by our vote counts, gay marriage advocates were at least 5 votes short.  We were cautiously optimistic gay marriage would not pass. “Nervously optimistic” would be more accurate.

The senate debate was dominated by out-of-touch politicians who made astonishingly arrogant and tone-deaf statements. Politician after politician got up there and said that those of us who know that marriage is the union of husband and wife are somehow similar to racists who imposed slavery or voted for segregationist oppression. State Sen. Suzie Oppenheimer actually cited the Nazi persecution of her husband’s family as somehow a reason to vote for gay marriage. State Sen. Tom Duane, the lead sponsor, was weepily self-congratulatory, implying that his support for gay marriage made him akin to great heroes of history from Harriet Tubman to Nelson Mandela who risked their lives for moral truth.  Senator after senator turned to Tom Duane and suggested that the great relationship he had with his partner was a good reason to publicly redefine marriage over the wishes of their own constituents.


Do they have any idea how odd they sound? Not only to the majority of Americans who disagree with gay marriage, but even to a big chunk of their own supporters? Most Americans, regardless of their own views, do not think their friends, family members, and neighbors who support our marriage traditions are not anything like the bigots and racists who wanted to enslave Harriet Tubman, or throw Nelson Mandela in jail for twenty years. Grandma is not like George Wallace because she doesn’t see two guys in a union as a marriage.

Many black Americans in D.C. are making that clear: As Taylor Harris, a young black grad student, put it in a November 28 op-ed in the Washington Post (responding to a column by Julian Bond arguing that African-Americans should support gay marriage as a civil right), “I’m sorry, Julian. I wasn’t there with you in 1963 to fight, but I still can’t be your George Wallace today.”

As I listened to the debate drone on, I remember thinking to myself: Have we done everything we could? Thanks to you, NOM was able to put out an enormous effort. We spent more than $600,000 using sophisticated technology that allows us to reach out to voters across the state to make sure they knew what their politicians were up to. We had just come off a great victory in November, not only in Maine but in New York’s 23rd Congressional District where Dede Scozzafava, one of the few Republicans ever to vote for gay marriage, had just gone down to a very public defeat. NOM spent more than $100,000 making sure voters in her district understood that Dede had voted twice for gay marriage in the New York state assembly. (Fifty percent of Doug Hoffman’s voters told us on the eve of the election that Dede’s vote for gay marriage was a “significant factor” in their decision to abandon the GOP candidate and vote for a third party.) “The Dede Effect” surely helped persuade some squishy GOP state senators of a basic political truth: It is a bad idea for a Republican to vote for gay marriage.

And we know your help made a huge difference! When regular Americans learn their politicians are messing around with marriage, instead of focusing on the big important issues (like jobs, the budget, taxes, education), they rise to the occasion and make their voice and values heard! NOM’s voter outreach generated thousands of calls in every state senate district–in many cases from people who had never before picked up the phone to call their elected representatives.

How big a difference did this make? We know many others in New York were working hard and making a difference on both sides of the aisle. But listen to what one of the key swing senators, State Sen. Joseph Addabbo (Democrat, of Queens) told the New York Daily News about why he ended up voting “no”: “Addabbo said he was simply following what 74% of constituents who contacted him wanted.”

That’s right. In New York City, 74 percent of the constituents who wrote or called Sen. Addabbo said: “We want you to vote no to gay marriage.” Together we can make a difference.

Don’t believe everything you read in the media. After the D.C. city council voted for the first time to pass a gay-marriage bill, we issued a press release that said “We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight!” So what did Tim Craig of the Washington Post report? Somehow he decided that opponents of gay marriage were giving up.

Bishop Harry Jackson and others are not giving up, and we will be there to help fight for marriage every step of the way. Stay tuned.

But our immediate battle shifts across the mighty Hudson to New Jersey. Garden State Equality chief Steven Goldstein promised supporters he would pass a gay-marriage bill in the lame duck session.  Archbishop Myers and the Catholic Conference, however, circulated petitions with more than 150,000 New Jerseyans who oppose gay marriage; the New Jersey Family Policy Council, Mayor Steve Lonegan, and many other are refusing to accept the allegedly inevitable. And NOM is fighting right alongside, using the same powerful technology and techniques to reach tens of thousands of voters quickly and get them in this fight too.

If we win this battle in the next four weeks, Gov.-elect Chris Christie has promised to veto any gay marriage bill that crosses his desk. The stakes are high, the battle urgent.

If you leave marriage to the politicians or the judges, the political insiders will cut themselves deals that leave your values on the outside. But we at NOM promise: We will not let that happen. We will never give up fighting for the truth, for common sense, for democracy, for civility, for the idea that we are made male and female, and meant to come together in love in marriage, for life.

God bless you! Until next week,

Brian S. Brown

Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ  08542

PS: NOM relies on your generosity and support to speak up for your values. Can you help us today with a donation of $10, $15, or, if God has given you the means, $100 or $150? Your donations make a difference!

NOM Featured Article
“N.Y. State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill By Wide Margin”
Washington Post
December 3, 2009
“I think you put it all together and it most likely spells the end of the idea that you can pass gay marriage democratically anywhere else in the United States,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which spearheaded opposition in Albany. “I think the gay marriage lobby will have to go back to a court-based approach.”

NOM in the News

“New York State Lawmakers Vote Against Gay Marriage”
December 2, 2009

“This is an enormous victory,” said Maggie Gallagher, the leader of the anti-gay marriage group, National Organization for Marriage. “What you saw was the will of the people. … The culture really hasn’t shifted on gay marriage.”

“Gay Marriage Momentum Stalls in NY, NJ”
Boston Globe
November 28, 2009
“If they are unable to pass gay marriage in New York and New Jersey, ombined with the loss in Maine, it will confirm that gay marriage is not the inevitable wave of the future,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which mobilizes social conservatives to fight same-sex marriage.

“DC Votes to Allow Gay Marriage, But Issue Not Settled”
Christian Science Monitor
December 1, 2009
“Please take a moment right now to call your state senator, urging him to vote NO on the same-sex marriage bill. Then call three friends and ask them to do the same,” read an alert put out by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

“Few Roadblocks Remain to Gay Marriage in DC”
Wall Street Journal
November 28, 2009
Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, said his group would apply pressure on Capitol Hill to scrap the bill. “It’s a difficult thing for Congress to actually overturn a law in the District,” Mr. Brown said.

“The National Organization for Marriage’s Bill for NY-23: $112736.75”
The Washington Independent
November 23, 2009
The National Organization for Marriage spent more than $100,000 on get-out-the-vote efforts for the failed (yes, really) campaign of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in NY-23. NOM’s work for Hoffman — it also paid for hand-outs distributed by the Susan B. Anthony List — was a minor blow to the organization on what was otherwise a good election night for it, given the voter repeal of gay marriage rights in Maine.

“Gay on Trial”
The American Prospect
November 23, 2009
“The law affects marriage primarily through its capacity to ‘name a shared reality,'” says Maggie Gallagher, president and founder of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage. “Gay-marriage advocates understand this on their side of the issue — the name matters, because words matter, symbols matter, naming reality matters.”

“Religious Leaders Unite Against Abortion and Same-Sex Unions”
New York Times
November 20, 2009

The document was written by Mr. Colson; Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, who is Catholic; and the Rev. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, an evangelical interdenominational school on the campus of Samford University, in Birmingham, Ala.

“Voice of the Nation” —Marriage Victories Ripple Through New York and Beyond

Join Heather and Angela for

Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio


On Thursday– This week on “Voice of the Nation” We will be talking about the great success yesterday in New York and the ripple effect recent marriage victories had there.  Join us as we talk with Scott Loveless about protecting marriage and family as we move forward from the big wins in Maine and New York to the coming fight in New Jersey.

Guest: Scott Loveless – Scott Loveless served eight years as the Executive Director of the World Family Policy Center at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University.  He initially practiced law for 20 years with the U.S. Department of the Interior, focusing on issues affecting environmental concerns:  water law, environmental law, public land law, and mining and mineral leasing law.  However, he pursued a Ph.D. in Family Studies (BYU 2000) after having observed the adverse consequences of divorce within his circle of acquaintances while living in the Washington, D.C. area. His dissertation sought to understand the human-relational effects of personal philosophies of happiness on the marriage relationship.  He has continued to write and publish on related themes, most recently in the 3-volume set, The Family in the New Millenium  (Praeger), on which he served as lead editor.  His current primary professional interests (and reason for joining UFI) are in the moral/philosophical origins of human rights law, current moral tensions in human rights law at the UN and elsewhere, and the consequences for societies and families of the different possible resolutions of those tensions.  Scott and Cheri, his wife of 35 years, are the grateful parents of 3 sons and 5 daughters and have 8 grandchildren.


The Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations in highlighting current issues facing families in the Pro-Family Movement.

Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION every Thursday at 2pm PST.  The call-in number is

347- 215-6801

What is Marriage? Rift in Gay Marriage Effort Widens

See this from ProtectMarriage.com
Dear Friends,

I have previously shared reports of a rift within the same-sex marriage movement about whether to press ahead to attempt to invalidate Prop 8 by initiative in 2010, or to push off the effort to 2012 or later. This week, the chasm between the two camps reached a noteworthy summit: one of California’s largest LGBT grassroots groups (they claim 700,000 supporters), the Courage Campaign, announced the withdrawal of its support for a 2010 fight.

After the Courage Campaign spent a reported $200,000 on voter research, its founder, Rick Jacobs, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “We do not see a path to victory.”

This is significant news because last May the Courage Campaign was one of the first same-sex marriage advocacy groups to sponsor the 2010 initiative effort. It seems that the decisive victories for traditional marriage in California and Maine, the election of pro-marriage governors in New Jersey and Virginia and a pro-marriage Democrat Congressional candidate in New York have homosexual marriage advocates heading back to the drawing board.
In a press release issued this week, Courage Campaign’s Jacobs said:

“We are taking the lessons learned from last year’s Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently.”

That leaves a coalition of small gay rights groups, with Love Honor Cherish as its leading proponent, behind the effort to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. California’s largest LGBT organization, Equality California, will continue to focus efforts on the re-launch of Let California Ring, its multi-year, multimillion dollar educational campaign which also aims to abolish Prop 8, but not until 2012.

While our opponent’s path to an electoral victory has been significantly – if not fatally – damaged by this week’s news, we continue our strategic work on the legal front. The federal lawsuit challenging the validity of Prop 8 is scheduled to go to trial in early January. And yesterday in Pasadena, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal heard our objections to recent orders to disclose internal campaign documents to opposing counsel.

We are literally working day and night to protect traditional marriage, and we appreciate your support to help us continue this critical fight.

Thank you for standing with us to protect the institution of marriage for this and future generations.


Ron Prentice
Executive Director

You can donate to the Prop 8 defense fund at:

Long Fought Victory in New York!

New York Soundly Defeats Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Congratulations New York on voting down the gay marriage initiative!  This vote is a win for families, kids and freedom.

Rev. Jason J. McGuire, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said, “Today’s vote results from the efforts made by a bipartisan, multiracial alliance united in support of the proposition that marriage is not just about adult satisfaction or the whims of a special interest group—it’s about kids. The bottom line is that children do best when raised by their biological mother and father. This bill would have encouraged and promoted the deliberate formation of households that deprive children of either a mom or a dad.”

“It is gratifying to see that so many senators from both parties are listening to their constituents and taking heed to the many objections that have been raised regarding this bill. The legislation placed freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in jeopardy.  New Yorkers’ voices were heard today.”  —New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms

Today, New York joins the ranks of states who have rejected gay marriage.  Not only was it rejected, but it was rejected by a far larger margin than anyone had hoped to anticipate.

“I think you put it all together and it most likely spells the end of the idea that you can pass gay marriage democratically anywhere else in the United States,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which spearheaded opposition in Albany. “I think the gay marriage lobby will have to go back to a court-based approach.

“We did believe they were short at least five votes, but we did not expect to win by 14 votes.”

NY Governor David Paterson has been pushing since early last year for this vote.  New Yorkers didn’t take it lying down, they got to the streets to rally pro marriage forces by the thousands.  They rallied, they fasted and they prayed.  I prayed too.

Thank you for the victory tonight in New York!  It was a long time coming.

—Beetle Blogger

See this more in depth account of what went down today from the Baptist Press:

N.Y. Senate debates religion, defeats ‘gay marriage’ bill

ALBANY, N.Y. (BP)–In a lengthy debate Wednesday that often focused more on theology than politics, the New York Senate defeated a “gay marriage” bill 38-24, handing homosexual activists another stinging defeat in the liberal Northeast.

The bill had breezed through the Assembly 86-51 the previous night and Democratic Gov. David A. Paterson had pledged to sign it, putting all eyes on the Senate, where Democrats have a two-vote majority. But after an impassioned two-hour debate that even saw a few legislators shed tears, the bill fell far short of the required 32 votes, preventing the nation’s third most populous state from redefining marriage.

It is the third significant recent defeat in the Northeast for “gay marriage” supporters, who on Election Day saw Maine vote to prohibit such relationships and New Jersey replace a governor who supports “gay marriage” with one who opposes it. The defeat could have ramifications in New Jersey, where homosexual activists are pushing for a vote on a bill there before lame duck Gov. Jon Corzine leaves office Jan. 19.

full article here

Voice of the Nation— The People’s Win in Maine

Join Heather and Angela for

Voice of the Nation

Family Values Blog Talk Radio


On Thursday– This week on “Voice of the Nation” We will be talking about the great success in Maine and the election results for both conservative governors in Virginia and New Jersey. Join us as we talk  about protecting marriage and family as we move forward from the big win in Maine.


The Family Values Blog Talk Radio show is a joint effort between United Families International, the Digital Network Army, and other Pro-Family organizations in highlighting current issues facing families in the Pro-Family Movement.

Call in to VOICE OF THE NATION every Thursday at 2pm PST. The call-in number is

347- 215-6801

« Older entries