newsalarmonline.com

Which relationships tend to have more violent conflicts, heterosexual or homosexual?  This study seems to suggest that gay marriage isn’t all it’s proponents think it might be:

A series of high-profile cases of lesbian-perpetrated domestic violence has sent shock-waves through Massachusetts communities in recent months…

Experts on lesbian domestic violence were shocked, but honestly not surprised by these incidents. Last November a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reported a 125% increase in domestic violence fatalities in lesbian and gay couples around the country during the prior year. According to Beth Leventhal of The Network/La Red of Boston, “partner abuse in LGBT communities can be just as lethal as that in heterosexual communities.”

Ms. Leventhal’s commentary actually understates the extent of the problem. Earlier this year the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research published the results of a survey of over 51,000 California adults . The UCLA study found 28% of persons in lesbian/gay relationships had experienced intimate partner violence, compared to 17% of persons in heterosexual relationships.

I’m sure gays go into marriage thinking their relationship will last forever and be loving just has heterosexuals do. However, the numbers seem to suggest that for gays that works out less often.

Hold the tuxes and flowers, it’ll be quite awhile before gay marriages are legal in California:

A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state’s gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge’s order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

I had a feeling the activists were celebrating a little early when the judge ruled that gay marriages could begin again on Wednesday.

Because we can’t have a corporation expressing their First Amendment rights via political donations:

Protestors have been rallying outside Target Corp. or its stores almost daily since the retailer angered gay rights supporters and progressives by giving money to help a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. Liberal groups are pushing to make an example of the company, hoping its woes will deter other businesses from putting their corporate funds into elections.

A national gay rights group is negotiating with Target officials, demanding that the firm balance the scale by making comparable donations to benefit candidates it favors. Meanwhile, the controversy is threatening to complicate Target’s business plans in other urban markets. Several city officials in San Francisco, one of the cities where Target hopes to expand, have begun criticizing the company.

“Target is receiving criticism and frustration from their customers because they are doing something wrong, and that should serve absolutely as an example for other companies,” said Ilyse Hogue, director of political advocacy for the liberal group MoveOn.org, which is pressing Target to formally renounce involvement in election campaigns.

The first thing Target corporation should have done is throw these people out of their offices. There’s nothing for Target to gain by negotiating with those who are trying to shut down their rights of political expression.

I guarantee you that had Target donated to candidates approved by MoveOn there wouldn’t be any protests of calls to “balance the scale”.

Well, not officially, but the net result of this judge’s decision will be a lot more business for divorce lawyers:

Gay and lesbian couples in California who were breathlessly poised to get married this morning had their hopes dashed when the federal judge who struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage lifted his stay on those nuptials – but simultaneously ruled that his order not take effect for six more days.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker invalidated Proposition 8 last week, saying the ban was discriminatory and unconstitutional. At the time, he put a temporary stay on his ruling, meaning it could not be enforced.

He lifted that stay today, according a court announcement at 12:35 p.m. However, Walker said in today’s order that the stay will not be canceled until 5 p.m. on Aug. 18.

That gives proponents of Prop. 8 time to ask the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for another stay.

Imagine my surprise – the gay judge who invalidated the gay marriage ban now says gay marriages can start up soon. Didn’t everyone see that coming?

No surprise here:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal memorandum today calling for the resumption of same-sex weddings.

They should go first. I’m sure they’d make a lovely couple.

Chuck Todd put this out regarding Obama’s opinion on gay marriage:

WH adviser David Axelrod said the president still believes that decisions about marriage should be left up to the states.

So, will he be asking Eric Holder to file a brief supporting California’s right to determine its own marriage laws? Probably not. And don’t forget, Obama is as responsible as anyone for the passage of Proposition 8. His black and hispanic supporters who turned out in large numbers for him in the 2008 election also voted in large majorities for Proposition 8 and very well could have provided the margin of victory.

Of course, Obama isn’t exactly Mr. Consistency. When Arizona wanted to defend itself against the onslaught of illegal aliens they were told that they could not make that decision for themselves. That was a federal issue.

It’s time to return to the states the authority they were granted under the 10th amendment to the constitution, and to remove from the federal government the power they have usurped through constitution-hating lawmakers and judges.

William Duncan at The Corner has a good analysis of the twisted legal reasoning used to toss traditional marriage in California:

The court’s legal premise is pretty novel. Judge Walker rules that laws reflecting the understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process and equal-protection clauses. That is to say, he believes Proposition 8 took away a fundamental right and singled out a protected class for unfair treatment. The bottom-line conclusion in support of both legal theories is that California voters could have had no motive in supporting Proposition 8 other than a desire to signal that people who identify as gay and lesbian are inferior to heterosexuals. This is deeply problematic on at least two levels.

First, none of the testimony in the trial showed (nor could it have shown) the voters’ subjective intent in approving the measure. A corollary point is that the question is entirely irrelevant. If voters pulled the lever for that law because they liked the number 8, or because they have atavistic hatreds, or because they really believe that marriage between husband and wife is a uniquely valuable institution though they have no problem with their gay and lesbian neighbors, it is hard to imagine what those intentions could have to do with whether the law they approve accords with the Constitution. It is worth noting that, since California gives all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples through another legal status, the idea that most or even many voters were acting out of hatred is pretty unlikely.

The second, more fundamental problem stems from the reality that marriage has always been understood, with very few exceptions, as the union of a man and a woman. This is true across time, across cultures, across religious traditions, etc. Does it really seem likely that this remarkable consensus is nothing but a nasty desire of one group to flaunt its privileged position over a minority? Is it really feasible that the world’s cultures all consulted about how to put down gay people and came up with marriage as the solution? Judge Walker seems to think gender and children have nothing to do with marriage; the facts suggest precisely the opposite. All of this just to say that the idea that marriage is a homophobic conspiracy is a conclusion not anchored in reality.

We are ever closer to the day when a federal judge can simply rule things unconstitutional because he or his friends don’t like them.  I think we’re already starting to see that happen.

The judge was gay – what did you expect would happen:

California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled today.

The ruling is expected to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and then the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume as the appeals process moves forward.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license,” Walker wrote in his 138-page ruling. “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.”

“Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

I still think Proposition 8 will survive a Supreme Court challenge once the Ninth Circus gets done affirming this judge’s ruling.

Someday the citizens of this country are going to get fed up with unelected, unaccountable judges overturning the will of the voters and they’re going to rebel. Unfortunately, we can’t do much about the people currently on the bench, but we can do a lot about future judges by simply electing presidents who will appoint judges who believe the constitution means what it says and doesn’t approach every case with the attitude that the voters are too stupid to know what’s right for them.

In the meantime we can start by flushing society’s debris from the House and Senate this November so we can stop liberal judges from being confirmed during the last two years of Obama’s reign.

The famed British rocker who took a lot of flak for agreeing to sing at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding is once again trodding where the politically correct dare not go:  Arizona:

Elton John didn’t mince words in slamming his fellow musicians for boycotting Arizona over the controversial SB 1070 immigration law. From the stage at his sold-out Tucson Arena concert Thursday night, John savored a few choice, not-so-family-friendly words:

“We are all very pleased to be playing in Arizona. I have read that some of the artists won’t come here. They are (expletive)wits! Let’s face it: I still play in California, and as a gay man I have no legal rights whatsoever. So what’s the (expletive) with these people?”

I’ve never been a big fan of the flamboyant British rocker, but he’s starting to grow on me.

Another mainstream denomination starts to circle the drain:

Seven pastors who work in the San Francisco Bay area and were barred from serving in America’s largest Lutheran group because of a policy that required gay clergy to be celibate are being welcomed into the denomination.

It’s always San Francisco, isn’t it?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will add six of the pastors to its clergy roster at a service at St. Mark’s Lutheran Church in San Francisco on Sunday. Another pastor who was expelled from the church, but was later reinstated, will participate in the service.

The group is among the first gay, bisexual or transgender Lutheran pastors to be reinstated or added to the rolls of the ELCA since the organization voted last year to lift the policy requiring celibacy.

Churches can now hire noncelibate gay clergy who are in committed relationships.

After all, we can’t let Biblical teaching get in the way of their happiness.