California Bans Gay Teen Conversion Therapy

Comments Off

The government has no right to butt into parental rights, but it does it all the time and it’s getting worse. Government should refrain from interfering in private medical decisions between doctors and patients.

California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill banning mental therapy for minors struggling with gender confusion.

Beginning Jan. 1, therapists are prohibited from telling anyone under the age of 18 that it’s possible to change their sexual orientation.

According to Brown, the therapies “have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”

(Speaking of “no basis in science” , watch the video below)

The move has sparked outrage from those who have undergone that therapy. Some say it helped them overcome same sex attraction sparked by childhood sexual abuse.

Conservative religious groups, like the organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, argue the ban takes away parents’ rights to provide psychological care for confused children.

“As parents of gays and ex-gays, we are ashamed of your willingness to take action against parents, children, and the family in order to support gay activists,” the group wrote in an open letter to Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu, who authored the legislation.

“California is not a socialist state and our children do not belong to the government, subject to the ideology of the state over the objections of their parents,” the group said.

California is the first state to ban conversion therapy for teens.

CBN News

Boston mayor’s letter to Chick-fil-A: Stay out of Boston!

Comments Off

I’ve got to ask…..just how ridiculous is this same sex, gay rights thing going to get. People have a right to disagree with things as this. The mayor of Boston must be out of his mind to run commerce out of his city. If the gays don’t like what Chick-fil-a is saying, then don’t patronize them, it’s that simple. Don’t demand they go against their concience. It’s obvious the gays aren’t willing to go against theirs, so why expect someone else to give in? Take your business elsewhere, punish them if you must that way. Your only hurting your cause this way.

Chick-Fil-A locator.

On the heels of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s controversial public comments against same-sex marriage, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino fired off a letter to Cathy, urging him to abandon plans to expand the fast food chain to his city.

“In recent days you said Chick-fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it has ‘an arrogant attitude,’” Menino wrote in a letter dated July 20 and published online Wednesday. “Now—incredibly—your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.”

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” Cathy said in a recent radio interview. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

In an interview with the Baptist Press published last week, Cathy doubled down on his stance against same-sex unions.

“Guilty as charged,” Cathy said. “We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

“We know that it might not be popular with everyone,” he added, “but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

All 1,608 of Chick-fil-A’s restaurants are closed on Sundays, a day of rest for most Christians.

Read more

Is President Obama Acting Like a King? Declaring DOMA Unconstitutional

Comments Off

While listening to this, remember the Constitution only give Judges the right to do what Obama is doing with DOMA and only Congress can make laws.

President Obama Ignores the Constitution: Again

Comments Off

Who does this president think he is? I’m losing count at the times he has ignored the Constitution or law. He ignored Judge Vinson with the declaring of Obamacare unconstitutional, the judge that said the moratorium on deep sea drilling was unconstitutional and something elese I can’t remember. Folks we’re in trouble when the commander in chief ignores the Constitution, he’s acting like a dictator that doesn’t have to obey the Constitution.

Obama declares Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

Obama declares Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional


The president orders the Department of Justice to stop defending Defense of Marriage Act in court

According to National Journal, President Obama has declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The administration made the announcement a few minutes ago and will alert Congress later today:

“The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits,” a person briefed on the decision said.

Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed the report in a statement to the press:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded (not a court or judge as the Constitution calls for) that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Read full coverage at National Journal

Iowa Voters Impeach Three Pro Gay Marriage Judges From Bench


All I can say is that it is about time something like this happened.  Not just on the same sex marriage issue, but other many issues as well when the judges go against what the people of that State have done. We have another good example today in Oklahoma where the Citizens voted against ever letting Sharia Law become law in their State. Today a Oklahoma Federal Judge put a stay on that vote becoming effective. If possible the State of Oklahoma should impeach that judge as soon as possible.  In this case it was a judicial retention election. Then the remaining judges will think twice before overturning what the majority of the Citizens voted into law. Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit were voted off the bench in Tuesday’s election, creating multiple vacancies on the court for the first time since its inception.

Iowa Voters Impeach Three Pro Gay Marriage Judges From Bench

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich told a conference call for conservative Christian pastors Thursday that Iowans voting to oust three state Supreme Court justices over their 2009 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage was an example of voters “taking on the judicial class,” according to a report by People for the American Way.

Gingrich, while touting the massive Republican wins in Congress and state legislatures as profoundly historic, also called attention to the million-dollar Religious Right-led campaign that led to the rejection of three marriage equality-supporting Iowa Supreme Court justices in retention elections.  “Taking on the judicial class,” said Gingrich, and telling judges that “we are not going to tolerate enforced secularization of our country,” is “one of the most important things we can engage in.”

Gingrich, who is once again openly mulling a run for president, will return to Iowa later this month to speak at Iowa State University in Ames. He will discuss his new novel, “Valley Forge: A Story of Endurance and Transformation.” The Republican openly advocated for the judges to be removed from the bench, saying earlier this year that doing so “will send a signal to the whole country that there is a citizens revolt under way.”

Iowa Independent


Indy bakery could lose lease for turning away gays‎

Comments Off

This is getting absolutely ridiculous  when a business can’t decide who it wants to do business with itself instead of the City,county,State or Federal government telling them what to do with their own business. The City of Indianapolis is violating their own law about discriminating against religions.

Indy bakery could lose lease for turning away gays‎

An Indianapolis cookie shop could be evicted from its longtime location for refusing a special order from a college homosexual group.

Gay pride flagThe bakery “Just Cookies” has operated in a city-owned market for over 20 years. The president of the board that oversees the market told the Indianapolis Star that he would “hate to lose them” as a tenant — but that could very well happen because owner David Stockton took a moral stand and did not want to endorse homosexual activity.

Controversy arose this week after the owners of the bakery cited moral objections to a special-order request for rainbow-decorated cookies for next week’s “National Coming Out Day” observance at a nearby university campus. Stockton told the caller he did not feel comfortable in supporting homosexual values, especially because it would not set a good example for his two daughters.

Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana says there are reports the city might evict Stockton, citing a local “anti-discrimination” statute.

“Indianapolis passed a sexual-orientation city ordinance five years ago,” Clark explains. “…We warned [at that time] that this type of thing would happen if they passed an ordinance elevating a sexual behavior to the same moral equivalent of race or skin color.”

Micah Clark (AFA of IN)Had the shop filled the special order, the owner felt he would be providing a microphone for homosexuals to celebrate their lifestyle. But there is another consideration, says Clark.

“If this were a Muslim-owned bakery, what would happen?” he wonders. “I don’t think the city would pursue it the way they’re pursuing it now. I think this is part of the liberal agenda where people must conform to the views that our culture wants in support of homosexuality.” (And Clark is probably correct about this)

In an interview with the Star, the AFA of Indiana spokesman argued for the rights of business owners. “It’s one thing if someone walks into a store and buys a cookie off the shelf, but [the Stocktons] were being asked to become part of the [pro-homosexual] celebration. To make rainbow cookies for a special event with which the company has a disagreement — I think that goes beyond the pale of what we should expect companies to do.”

Meanwhile, homosexual groups are circulating memos encouraging people to stop purchasing at Just Cookies. Clark’s response to that is to ask residents to do business there in support of the owners and their wholesome beliefs.

The Star reports the organizers of the homosexual celebration found another bakery to fill their order — “The Flying Cupcake.”

One News Now

What a Coincidence: Federal Judge: Military’s ban on gays is unconstitutional

Comments Off

Well what do you know….President Obama and anyone else for doing away with “don’t ask, don’t tell” is now off the hook without affecting them politically and they didn’t have to vote on it either. After all these years of “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell” being legal, all of a sudden now when they were wanting to get rid of it, but we getting a lot of flack about it, even from Military people. How convenient for them all…………...

Judge: Military’s ban on gays is unconstitutional

A federal judge on Thursday declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional and said she will issue an order to stop the government from enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members, filed a lawsuit in 2004 seeking an injunction to stop the ban’s enforcement. Phillips will draft the injunction with input from the group within a week, and the federal government will have a week to respond.

After-hours e-mails requesting comment from U.S. Department of Justice attorney Paul G. Freeborne and from the Pentagon were not immediately returned Thursday.

The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to repeal the policy.

The Log Cabin Republicans said more than 13,500 service members have been fired since 1994.

“This decision will change the lives of many individuals who only wanted to serve their country bravely,” said the group’s attorney, Dan Woods.

Woods argued during the nonjury trial that the policy violates gay military members’ rights to free speech, open association and right to due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

He said the ban damages the military by forcing it to reject talented people as the country struggles to find recruits in the midst of a war. Lawyers also submitted remarks by Obama stating “don’t ask, don’t tell” weakens national security.

AP News. excite

Judge Upholds Stay on Same Sex Marriage in California

Comments Off

Well no same sex marriages in California for a while now…that’s good news. The will of the California people is holding for right now and it should be standing until they vote to change their mind….if they do. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to stick their nose in this. This should be a State to State decision voted on by “the people.”

Appeals Court Stays Prop 8 Marriage Ruling and Ban

The Ninth Circuit has stayed Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling in the high-profile Constitutional challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban.

The case is scheduled to be heard in early December. So hold the wedding bells.

There is some good news, though, for the same-sex plaintiffs: The court warned in its order that it’s considering dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the appelants — who don’t include the Governor or Attorney General — lack standing.

“In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing,” says the order.


New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 Judge Vaughn Walker be booted

Comments Off

This is what happens when you defy and rile “we the people”.

New campaign demanding ‘gay’ Prop. 8 judge be booted

‘It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibilities … activism on steroids’

The openly homosexual federal judge in California who overturned the state’s constitutional limitation of marriage to one man and one woman ignored a warning from the state’s own Supreme Court about the coming chaos of polygamy and incest if same-sex “marriages” are established and now is the target of an impeachment campaign.

Judge Vaughn Walker, who openly has lived a homosexual lifestyle, yesterday issued an order that the state could not enforce its own constitutional requirement that marriage is between members of the opposite sex only.

The ruling from Walker said “race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage.”

“Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other,” Walker said. “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

His opinion ignored the terse warning in state Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter’s dissenting opinion in the 2008 case affirming same-sex marriage. Baxter warned of the “legal jujitsu” required to establish same-sex marriage just a few months before California voters passed Proposition 8 and amended the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

“The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy,” Baxter warned in his dissent. “Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?” Baxter wrote.

The decision by Walker, which is being appealed, was too much for the tradition-oriented American Family Association, which promptly launched an action alert to its several million supporters.

The alert asks supporters to contact their members of Congress and demand impeachment of Walker.

“What you have here is a federal judge using the power of his position to legitimize what is sexually aberrant behavior,” Bryan Fischer, an analyst for the organization, told WND. “He’s trampling on the will of 7 million voters in California. It’s just a gross breach of his judicial responsibility.

“We think of it as an expression of judicial tyranny, judicial activism on steroids,” he said.

The organization’s action alert offers to constituents an option to track down their representatives in Washington and contact them directly on the issue.

“We have congressmen, they actually campaign on the premise these judges are unaccountable,” Fischer said.

But that’s simply wrong, he contended.

“There is a provision under which they can be held to account. The Framers did not intend for any branch of government to be unaccountable. There are mechanisms for federal judges who are out of control to be called to account,” he said.

Fischer noted the federal documentation provides that judges serve during “good behavior.”

“Of course, that leaves the question open for discussion what is good behavior, but our contention is this is egregiously bad on the part of this judge,” he said.

The AFA argues that since “marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states.”

But, “Under Judge Walker, it’s no longer ‘We the People,’ it’s ‘I the Judge,’” the action alert states.

“In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.”

“Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It’s time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker,” the alert said.

Fischer said the goal is that the campaign will put members of Congress on the spot, and on the record, about their willingness to rein in a renegade federal judge.

Worldnet Daily

Homosexual Judge overturns California’s ban on same-sex marriage

1 Comment

Well for the THIRD time an activist Federal Judge has struck down ‘the will of the people’ that was voted in by them. As you read this article, you might also find it interesting and informative to read another article on this blog entitled ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial Against Arizona” , because the same thing applies to this California case as it did to the Arizona case.

Newt Gingrich: Gay Marriage Ruling ‘Outrageous’

“Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they’ve affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy.

“Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”

Prop. 8 ruling will ‘stir a fire’

A pastor and pro-family activist believes the federal judge’s decision to usurp the will of the people of California marks a sad day for the state and for the rest of the country.

On Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in favor of four homosexuals who claimed that voter-approved Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, violated their civil rights. (See earlier story)

Jim Garlow, lead pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, California, says the judge threw out the principle of “we the people.”

Jim Garlow“He simply ripped from the state of California and seven-million voters the chance to articulate the definition of marriage that’s been accepted for over 5,000 years,” Garlow laments.

He notes that because the ruling will affect so many other states that already outlaw same-sex “marriage,” he expects the American people will be angry.

Some other Reactions to the Unconstitutional ruling by the Federal Judge

In March 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which specified in state law that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California. But in May 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gays, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in the ensuing months.

Opponents of same-sex marriage quickly got Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot to amend the state constitution, and it was approved by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.

The approval of the measure led to statewide protests and lawsuits challenging the legality of Proposition 8.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, but also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed in 2008 would remain valid.

Here’s some reactions from San Diego 6′s article:

“Judge Walker has ignored the written words of the Constitution, which he swore to support and defend and be impartially faithful to, and has instead imposed his own homosexual agenda upon the voters, the parents and the children of California,” Thomasson said.

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling because marriage isn’t in the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “The Constitution guarantees that state policies be by the people, not by the judges, and also supports states’ rights, thus making marriage a state jurisdiction.”

Thomasson added that as “a Californian and an American, I am angry that this biased homosexual judge, in step with other judicial activists, has trampled the written Constitution, grossly misused his authority and imposed his own agenda, which the Constitution does not allow and which both the people of California and California state authorities should by no means respect.”

Dr. Jim Garlow from Skyline Wesleyan Church added, “if you did this on the basis of equal protection and a person says I want to tbe married to 3 people or 5 people or I want to be married to my dog, what right does he have not to provide ‘equal protection’?”

Garlow said this could have an effect at the ballot box. “There will be a backlash, a conservative movement, that I think will play an even greater role in November.”

Federal Judge Rules Gay Marriage Ban is Unconstitutional

SAN DIEGO – Marriage equality supporters in San Diego praised a federal judge’s decision Wednesday to strike down Proposition 8, the state’s voter- approved ban on same-sex marriage.

“I am overjoyed that the U.S. District Court overturned Proposition 8,” San Diego City Councilman Todd Gloria said. “I know our fight to secure this right is not over, but I am confident this civil right will be confirmed and marriage equality will be realized.”

The ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.

San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker presided over the non-jury trial of a lawsuit alleging the voter-approved 2008 measure violates the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian couples by preventing them from marrying.

In a 136-page ruling, Walker wrote that the proposition “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker wrote. “Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”

Walker issued an order barring the enforcement of the law, but proponents of Proposition 8 were expected to appeal — likely all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Walker issued a stay on the ruling until at least Friday,meaning same-sex marriages will not immediately resume in the state. Supporters of Prop 8 had asked for a stay, saying allowing couples to marry pending the appeal would create confusion if Walker’s ruling is eventually overturned.

San Diego 6

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers