same-sex-marriage

Thursday, January 10, 1963 in the House of Representatives, Hon. A.S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida requested, at the urging of Mrs. Patricia Nordman, DeLand, Fl., the Communist Goals (1963) be read into the record of the House of Representatives.  They were.  Among those goals, considered to be the “current” communist goals was the following:

“#40.  Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.”   [Done]

 FOIA, FBI, Gay Activists Alliance, File No. 100-469170, adopted by the National Coalition of Gay Organizations in Chicago, Ill., February 13, 1973:

Federal Demands: 

#2.  Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation….”  [Done]

#6.  Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by qualified gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference…..to heterosexuality.”  [Done]

 State Demands:

#5.  “Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption…..shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.”  [Done]

#7.  “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”  [Working on it]

You Might Like

#8.  “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits of marriage to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.” [Working on it]


June 26, 2003, in the sodomy case of Lawrence v Texas, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Petitioners (Lawrence and Garner) voiding laws in any state making sodomy a criminal offense.  In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia noted:

“…..The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts-and may legislate accordingly.  The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada…..the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter”.  Do not believe it.”

Prophetic words by Justice Scalia?

June 26, 2013 DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and California’s Proposition 8:

#1.  Contrary to what the LGBT community and activist judges would have you believe, the section of this law ruled unconstitutional was only the portion relating to the federal government’s definition of marriage as between one man/one woman which  effectively prevented same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits ;  however, the portion of DOMA that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states was left intact.  

#2.  On California’s Proposition 8, the high-court found that backers of Proposition 8 didn’t have the legal right (standing) to defend the voter-approved gay marriage ban in place of the Governor and Attorney General who refused to appeal a federal judge’s 2010 ruling finding the law unconstitutional and sent it back to that original decision.

In his dissenting opinion to the DOMA decision, some of Justice Scalia’s comments:

“But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements….To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution…..All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence…..unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history…..It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here.”

Currently, 17  states plus Washington D.C.  have legal same-sex marriage:  6 by court decision; 8 by state legislature; 3 by popular vote.  (Is it not curious that all but 3 states had the decision imposed on them by either a court or state legislature?  All the states, incidentally,  are Democrat controlled) 

Currently, 33 states ban same sex marriage; 26 by constitutional amendment and state law; 3 by constitutional amendment only; 4 by state law only.

You Might Like

To sum it all up, challenges to states who have established bans on same-sex marriage have commenced since the June 2013 decision by our esteemed Supreme Court.  Following the examples set by both President Obama and the Governor and AG of California, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Kane, has decided she will not uphold either her oath of office or the Constitution of the United States and defend a legal vote by the people of her state to ban same-sex marriage.  She should be recalled immediately.  ANY public servant who fails in their capacity to uphold the laws they have sworn to uphold, regardless of their personal belief, should be recalled.  She is violating the will of the people who voted for that specific law/constitutional amendment.

take our poll - story continues below

Would election by popular vote be better than the electoral college?

  • Would election by popular vote be better than the electoral college?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I live in Virginia and the lawsuit has already begun.  With the changing of the ‘guard’ from Republican to Democrat, including the incoming Attorney General, I shudder to think that we could be under the same circumstance here as in Pennsylvania when it comes to defending our law.  The incoming governor has already talked of issuing an executive order on a homosexual item  that failed to pass the Virginia legislature and if he follows his ‘leader’, I’m sure that won’t be the only one.

In reference to State Demand #5 above –  just recently in the first ruling of its kind, a Manhattan surrogate court judge, Rita Mella, ruled that an unmarried and unromantically-involved couple who are “just friends” can become legal parents of an adopted little girl.  BTW, they each have separate partners and live in entirely different homes.

Yes, we live in a really twisted world, don’t we?

Grace Beau is the Editor of American Patriot.