The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

WASHINGTON - Religious conservative leaders, sensing declining alarm over same-sex marriage, are warning that the debate over homosexuality has prompted attacks on religious freedom.

By expanding the discussion from marriage to religious expression, social conservatives say they will reconnect with religious voters and religious leaders who don't necessarily view same-sex unions as a threat.

"There are a number of pastors that said, 'Look, we don't get involved in politics, I'm not going to get involved in this issue, I just want to preach the gospel,'" said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "When they realize their ability to preach the gospel may very well be at stake, they may reconsider their involvement."

Perkins and others are building a case file of anecdotes where they say religious people have spoken out against gay marriage only to be punished. Perkins specifically cited the decision by Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich in June to fire his appointee to the Washington area transit board after the board member referred to homosexuals as "persons of sexual deviancy."

The board member, Robert J. Smith, said he was expressing his personal beliefs as a Roman Catholic.

The subject of religious expression will be the main theme of an Oct. 15 gathering in Boston of conservative religious and political leaders that will be broadcast to churches nationally.

Many social conservatives credit the furor in 2004 over gay marriage for mobilizing voters in key states who voted for President Bush. Since then, however, 16 states have passed initiatives or legislation banning same-sex marriage and several court decisions have upheld those bans.

"As the immediate threat has diminished so has the awareness," Perkins said.

Eight states have ballot initiatives in November to prohibit gay marriage, including some states with closely contested congressional races. Perkins said religious conservative groups planned to use direct mail and the Internet to alert voters about the stands candidates have taken on the marriage issue.

Gays and lesbians have no constitutional right to marry in California, and any change giving them that right must come from state lawmakers or the voters rather than the legal system, a state appeals court declared Thursday.

The 2-1 decision reversed a lower-court ruling in favor of plaintiffs who were among the thousands of gays and lesbians who married at San Francisco City Hall in 2004. It cleared the way for both sides to argue their case before the state Supreme Court, which will have the final say on whether the courts can give same-sex couples the right to marry.

San Francisco Superior Court Richard Kramer ruled last year that a 1977 state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violated the state Constitution by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry the partners of their choice. Kramer also found that the law discriminated on the basis of sex.

By contrast, the ruling Thursday by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco focused on the law's roots in the traditional definition of marriage, the prerogatives of state legislators and voters to make social policy and the limits of judicial authority.

The central issue is "who gets to define marriage in our democratic society,'' Presiding Justice William McGuiness said in the majority opinion, which was joined by Justice Joanne Parrilli. "We believe this power rests in the people and their elected representatives.''

He said there were major differences between this case and the California Supreme Court's landmark 1948 ruling that struck down the state's ban on interracial marriage. That ruling did not purport to change the traditional definition of marriage, McGuiness said. Instead, it took aim at the law's perpetuation of racial discrimination, which -- unlike discrimination based on sexual orientation -- is condemned in the U.S. Constitution, McGuiness said.

"We believe it is rational for the Legislature to preserve the opposite-sex definition of marriage, which has existed throughout history and which continues to represent the common understanding of marriage in most other countries and states of our union," McGuinness said.

He also pointed to recent steps by the state, giving registered domestic partners the same rights as spouses under California law, as evidence that the state is not discriminating against same-sex couples. Those laws are not recognized by the federal government, however, and do not entitle same-sex partners to benefits in such areas as Social Security, income taxes and immigration.

McGuiness said the fundamental right to marry applied only to traditional opposite-sex unions.

"That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings,'' he said.

Dissenting Justice J. Anthony Kline said the ruling condones the same kind of bias that the state's high court outlawed in 1948. He said the majority's conclusion that laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians are more tolerable than racist laws "requires us to deny as judges what we know as people.''

Kline also said the definition of marriage accepted by the appeals court -- excluding a class of people based on their sexual orientation -- "demeans the institution of marriage and diminishes the humanity of the gay men and lesbians who wish to marry a loved one of their choice.''

Advocates of same-sex marriage joined Kline's criticism, saying the court had offered no rationale for the law other than a discriminatory tradition.

"If other courts had followed this line of reasoning, we would still have segregation,'' said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office joined groups of same-sex couples in suits challenging the marriage law.

But the tone of Thursday's ruling, deferring to the judgments of elected officials and voters and prescribing a modest role for the courts, could appeal to the state Supreme Court. The court has issued several pro-gay-rights rulings, including decisions last year upholding parental status for lesbian partners, but seldom overturns state laws or executive decisions.

"What's significant is the level of review'' in McGuiness' ruling, said Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a conservative organization that represented opponents of gay rights and same-sex marriage in the case.

In the appeals court's view, he noted, "it doesn't matter whether judges disagree with the policy. What matters is whether the Legislature has a rational and legitimate basis to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.''

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a lawyer for 12 same-sex couples in the case, said he was confident that the state's high court would at least subject the law to closer scrutiny.

Under Thursday's ruling, the fact that lesbians and gays have never been allowed to marry "is a reason enough to exclude them from marriage,'' Minter said. "We may lose (at the Supreme Court), but if we do, they won't rely on reasoning like that. I think we'll win.''

The plaintiffs plan to file their appeals next month, and the Supreme Court would then have up to 90 days to decide whether to let Thursday's ruling stand or -- as generally expected -- accept the case for review. A hearing could take place in late 2007, with a ruling due 90 days later.

The high court already weighed in on an aspect of the case in August 2004, when it overturned nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages performed at San Francisco City Hall in February and March of that year on the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom. The court said Newsom had exceeded his authority by defying the marriage law, but it did not rule on the validity of the law.

While the case was pending, the Legislature passed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying voter approval was needed because of a 2000 ballot initiative reaffirming the 1977 marriage statute and denying recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Schwarzenegger said the issue should be decided in the courts.

Happy National Coming Out Day! The right-wing nuts are going, well, nuts. Wal-Mart is sponsoring LGBT Diversity Week at Boise State University in Idaho--October 9 to 13--and once again, the American Family Association is apoplectic. The group's action alert on the issue makes entertaining reading: "Wal-Mart has given its full endorsement to the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage," the AFA fumes, noting, with trademark far-right salaciousness, that one of the event's other sponsors is a purveyor of sex toys (the "Pleasure Boutique"). But the conservative loons realize that when Wal-Mart supports a cause, it has become truly mainstream; that's why they're particularly upset that one of the (Wal-Mart-sponsored) events in Boise offers information on the campaign to defeat a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Idaho.

Christian Coalition leader resigns: Organization rejects pastor's focus on easing poverty and saving the environment, sticks with opposing abortion and same-sex marriage ... "The Rev. Joel Hunter, of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Fla., said he quit as president-elect of the group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson because he realized he would be unable to broaden the organization's agenda beyond opposing abortion and same-sex marriage. He hoped to include issues such as easing poverty and saving the environment. "These are issues that Jesus would want us to care about," Hunter said. The resignation took place Tuesday during an organization board meeting. Hunter said he was not asked to leave. "They pretty much said, "These issues are fine, but they're not our issues; that's not our base,' " Hunter said. A statement issued by the coalition said Hunter resigned because of "differences in philosophy and vision." The organization, headed by President Roberta Combs, claims a mailing list of 2.5 million. The Florida pastor recently tapped to lead the Christian Coalition of America resigned his position in a dispute about conservative philosophy - more than a month before he was to fully assume his post, he said this week."

Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; C01

Mary Cheney, the vice president's openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

It's a baby boom for grandparents Dick and Lynne Cheney: Their older daughter, Elizabeth, went on leave as deputy assistant secretary of state before having her fifth child in July. "The vice president and Mrs. Cheney are looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild," spokesman Lea Anne McBride said last night.

Cheney, 37, was a key aide to her father during the 2004 reelection campaign and now is vice president for consumer advocacy at AOL. Poe, 45, a former park ranger, is renovating their Great Falls home.

News of the pregnancy will undoubtedly reignite the debate about gay marriage. During the campaign, Mary Cheney was criticized by gay activists for not being more publicly supportive of same-sex marriage. Her father said people "ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to" but deferred to the president's policy supporting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Cheney herself called the proposed amendment "a gross affront to gays and lesbians everywhere" in her book, "Now It's My Turn: A Daughter's Chronicle of Political Life," which was published in May.

Cheney has described her relationship with Poe -- whom she took to last year's White House dinner honoring Prince Charles and Camilla -- as a marriage. The two met in 1988 while playing ice hockey and began dating four years later. They moved from Colorado to Virginia a year ago to be closer to Cheney's family. In an interview with the Post six months ago, when asked if she and Poe wanted children, Cheney said that was a "conversation I think I should have with Heather first."

In November, Virginia voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions; state law is unclear on whether Poe could have full legal rights as a parent of Cheney's child. The circumstances of the pregnancy will remain private, said the source close to the couple. This is the first child for both.

TORONTO, Dec. 7 -- Canada's House of Commons rejected a move Thursday by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reopen debate on a national law permitting same-sex marriages.

The House, by a vote of 175 to 123, defeated the motion brought by Harper to fulfill a campaign promise to opponents of same-sex marriage. Thirteen members of his Conservative Party voted against the motion, reflecting a desire by Parliament not to reopen the issue.

Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour, asked Ms. Cheney if she had anything to say to critics like Mr. Dobson.

He wrote in Time magazine in December that years of social research "indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father." He also wrote that his group believes that "birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples." Two of the researchers Mr. Dobson cited have complained that he distorted their views and said they disagreed with his conclusions.

Ms. Cheney agreed the research was distorted. "Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years on this issue has shown there is no difference between children who are raised by same-sex parents and children who are raised by opposite-sex parents," she said. "What matters is that children are being raised in a stable, loving environment."