NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–Social conservatives within the Republican Party may be happy with President Bush’s backing of a constitutional marriage amendment, but homosexual Republicans aren’t.
Members of the Log Cabin Republicans — a homosexual activist group — are questioning whether they will support Bush in this year’s election being that he has backed an amendment that would protect the traditional definition of marriage, thus banning same-sex “marriage.”
The group held its annual meeting in mid-April.
“I’m going to have a hard time going with Bush,” Shawn Gardner, a member of the group, told the Associated Press. “In my good conscience, I don’t know how I can support him.”
The group has begun airing a 30-second television ad opposing Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment. The beginning of the ad shows images of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, drawing a parallel between that movement and the contemporary homosexual rights movement. It then shows a clip of Vice President Dick Cheney discussing the issue of homosexuality during the 2000 vice presidential debate.
As he speaks, words on the screen claim that the issue of same-sex “marriage” is one of states’ rights.
“States can choose for themselves,” the text reads. “Federal law protects them from what other states decide.”
At the climax of the commercial Cheney says: “People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. … I don’t think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.”
Text on the screen then reads: “We agree. Don’t amend the Constitution.”
While the commercial implies that Cheney was addressing the issue of same-sex “marriage,” a transcript of the debate shows otherwise.
CNN’s Bernard Shaw, who served as the debate’s moderator, asked both Cheney and vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman the following question: “Sexual orientation. Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all — all — the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?”
Newspaper stories the following day reported that the two men answered a question about “gay rights,” not same-sex “marriage.”
Last November the Log Cabin Republicans supported the Massachusetts’ high court’s decision in favor of same-sex “marriage.” In addition, the group has a series of talking points on its website supporting same-sex “marriage” legalization.
“As society has changed, so too has the institution of marriage,” the statement reads. “With a better understanding of gays and lesbians, the time has come for another change to this institution.”
Cheney, who has a homosexual daughter, recently said that he supports Bush’s position on a marriage amendment.
The legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts is the first step in a two-pronged effort by supporters to have it legalized nationwide. The second step involves suing in federal court to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act to have the Massachusetts licenses recognized elsewhere. The act, which is referenced in the commercial, was signed into law in 1996 and gives states the option of not recognizing another state’s same-sex “marriages.”
COURT DATE SET — The California Supreme Court has announced that it will hear oral arguments in the San Francisco same-sex “marriage” cases May 25. The court, which made its announcement April 28, is deciding whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom violated state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The court is not deciding whether same-sex “marriage” itself should be legalized.
The two cases are Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco and Lewis v. Alfaro.
The cases will be broadcast live on public affairs television in California.
ETHICS VIOLATION? — The author of the controversial same-sex “marriage” ruling in Massachusetts is being criticized for addressing a homosexual activist group some five years ago. Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the state high court, gave a keynote speech to the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association in 1999, CNSNews.com reported April 28.
The controversy centers on whether the event was a fund-raiser. At the time the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct stated that a judge “should not be a speaker or the guest of honor at an organization’s fund-raising events.” Marshall, who was an associate justice at the time, denies that it was a fund-raiser. CNSNews.com reported that the event was a $60-per-plate dinner.
If Marshall had recused herself from the case, it would have made a difference: The ruling was decided on a 4-3 vote.
KANSAS AMENDMENT REVIVED — Kansas legislators are attempting to revive a state constitutional marriage amendment that previously was defeated in the Senate. A House and Senate negotiating committee met April 29 to try and come up with an amendment that could pass both chambers.
Negotiators agreed on a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that will ban same-sex “marriages” and prohibit civil unions and any legal benefits to same-sex couples. The Kansas Senate will be the first to vote yes or no, with no changes. Sen. Dave Kerr, a Republican, said, “I think that it has a good chance” of passing his chamber.
The Senate defeated an amendment on a 17-16 vote in March, and pro-family citizens followed by calling their legislators, urging them to vote again.
The amendment must pass the House and Senate by a two-thirds vote before going to voters, who must approve it by a simple majority.
N.H. BILL PASSES — A New Hampshire bill that would ban same-sex “marriage” passed the state House 213-140 April 29. The bill, which now goes to the House, would also establish a committee to examine what changes would need to take place to legalize Vermont-type civil unions, according to the Associated Press.
The bill is a statute, not a constitutional amendment.
NOT IN FRANCE — The mayor of a town in France has announced plans to “marry” two men, but France Justice Minister Dominique Perben says the “marriage” would go against current law, AFP news service reported.
Noel Mamere, a mayor of a town in France, had planned on “marrying” two men June 5, saying that current law is ambiguous. But Perben disagrees.
“To argue that sexual difference between spouses is not written into the civil code is to lie,” Perben said, according to AFP.
BAN IN AUSTRALIA? — Australian Prime Minister John Howard says the federal government is considering changing the nation’s laws so that they would explicitly ban same-sex “marriage.”
“The proposal would simply be to insert a definition in the Marriage Act which gives formal expression to what most people regard to be the case — which is that marriage as we understand it in Australia is between a man and a woman,” he said, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
“This is not directed at gay people. It is directed at reaffirming a bedrock understanding of our society.”
–30–
For more information about the national debate over same-sex “marriage,” visit
http://www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage
