People Have no Right to Vote on Gay 'Marriage' Rules D.C. Appeals Court

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about gay marriage. This follows this post about Elena Kagan's testimony. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

People Have no Right to Vote on Gay 'Marriage' Rules D.C. Appeals Court

By John Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, July 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a 5-4 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals held today that the residents of Washington D.C. do not have the right to vote on the issue of same-sex "marriage," and that allowing a vote on the issue would amount to allowing “discrimination.”
The decision is the latest in a lengthy battle by Stand 4 Marriage DC, a coalition of the federal district's religious leaders led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church, to put the issue of gay “marriage” to a vote by the people.
In May of 2009 the 13 members of the D.C. City Council voted to recognize same-sex "marriages” that were performed in other U.S. states, after which Stand 4 Marriage appealed to allow a referendum on the issue.
However, their efforts have been blocked every step of the way, with local bureaucrats and judges repeatedly deciding that putting same-sex “marriage” to a popular vote would violate the human rights of homosexuals.
In June 2009, the capital district’s Board of Elections and Ethics ruled “that the Referendum does not present a proper subject of referendum because it would authorize discrimination prohibited under the Human Rights Act.”
On December 15 of last year, the city council voted 11-2 to pass a bill that would legalize all same-sex "marriages" in D.C. in addition to those contracted in other states. The law went into effect on March 3.
In January the D.C. Superior Court agreed with the city's ethics board, saying that, “The fact that the proposed initiative, if passed, would violate the Human Rights Act provides an independent basis for upholding the Board’s decision.”
In today’s ruling, the five majority judges of the appeals court reiterated these arguments, writing that the board "was not obliged to allow initiatives that would have the effect of authorizing discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act to be put to voters.”
The homosexualist organization Human Rights Watch applauded Thursday’s ruling. "The court's ruling today is a significant victory for justice, the rule of law and the protection of all D.C. residents against discrimination," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
"It's time for the National Organization for Marriage to realize equality is here to stay no matter how much money they want to throw at turning back the clock."
Keeping the issue of same-sex "marriage" from going to a referendum is a top priority for homosexualist activists - in every jurisdiction in the country where same-sex “marriage” has been put to a referendum, including some of the most liberal states in the union, it has been rejected by the people.
Penny Nance, Chief Executive Officer of Concerned Women for America (CWA), denounced today’s opinion, saying that, "The D.C Court of Appeals strikes at the heart of democracy with this activist ruling.”
"Knowing that whenever the issue of homosexual marriage is left to the voters the people overwhelmingly choose to protect traditional marriage ... a handful of activist judges who want to promote what they see as a desirable policy for our country, have taken matters into their own hands and imposed homosexual marriage by judicial fiat,” she said.
"No question, the case should be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.”
According to the Washington Post, Bishop Jackson is intending to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Jackson said that today is a "sad day" but also said that he was "encouraged" by the split vote.
"This is a very precedent-setting decision for District citizens because of the issue of whether an initiative can be blocked by District laws," Jackson said. "The people have a right to vote on this issue."
Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been instrumental in protecting true marriage, said: "The decision from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals today means that those living in our nation's capital are being denied their most fundamental freedom - the right to vote.
"We are considering our options to right this wrong, which include asking the Supreme Court of the United States to consider this case."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
DC Gay 'Marriages' Begin after Supreme Court Tosses Appeal http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10030314.html
Appeal Filed to Give D.C. Voters Right to Vote on Gay “Marriage” Law http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020905.html
D.C. Government Quashes Marriage Ballot Initiative as Violation of "Human Rights" http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09111804.html
Gay "Marriage" Law Forces D.C. Archdiocese to End Foster Care http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10021711.html

Kagan Sought to Twist another Medical Statement on Partial-Birth Abortion: AUL

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about Elena Kagan's testimony This follows this post about Elena Kagan's nomination being delayed. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Kagan Sought to Twist another Medical Statement on Partial-Birth Abortion: AUL

By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In addition to altering testimony on partial-birth abortion by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, documents suggest U.S. Supreme Court candidate Elena Kagan acted similarly with a policy statement by the American Medical Association, Americans United for Life (AUL) has reported.
LifeSiteNews.com reported June 30 that memos from Kagan's service in the Clinton administration reveal that she authored language that twisted ACOG's original statement, which declared that the group "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”
Kagan later added a sentence to the ACOG testimony stating that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” Last month in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings Kagan admitted her role in adding that language.
In a separate memo, Kagan had admitted that the ACOG's original wording “would be a disaster" for the administration's fight against the ban. AUL notes that Kagan, writing to Bruce Reed, Clinton's Chief Domestic Policy Advisor, later said that the statement "turned out a ton better than expected." Kagan also told Clinton in a 1997 memo that the ACOG statement was the "most reliable opinion" - one that became key testimony in delaying the partial-birth abortion ban for over a decade.
AUL revealed that Kagan also became involved when the American Medical Association issued a policy that stated there were no identified situations in which partial-birth abortion was the only appropriate method of abortion. Kagan indicated in a June 1, 1997 White House email, that she had just come from a meeting which focused "in particular" on "whether the AMA policy can be reversed at its convention on June 23."
"We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we (in truth HHS) could contribute to that effort," Kagan concluded.
AUL is urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate discrepancies between Kagan's testimony before Congress and written documents pertaining to her "undue influence" on medical organizations while a Clinton advisor.
"[Kagan] was such a devoted pro-abortion advocate that she was willing to deceive the American public and the federal courts about the medical science related to the procedure. She was willing to bend scientific fact to fit her pro-abortion ideology," said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life.
"The pieces that make up Kagan's abortion record reveal a staunchly pro-abortion ideologue who has devoted her life to serving pro-abortion political candidates, judges, and office-holders," said Yoest.

Urgent: Do you oppose Elena Kagan Supreme Court Nomination?‏

An interesting story from www.teapartyexpress.org about Elena Kagan's nomination being delayed. This follows this post about the National Day of Prayer For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Urgent: Do you oppose Elena Kagan Supreme Court Nomination?

Breaking news - the confirmation vote for leftist-activist judge, Elena Kagan, has been delayed! This is a great victory for those of us who are working hard to defeat her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Please join the Tea Party Express in REJECTING the nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court - by SIGNING HERE.

Please, forward this email on to others. We already have over 51,000 signatories as of Tuesday morning. Let us generate a groundswell of opposition to her nomination from people across America. This petition is free. Just sign and forward to friends. If you see a request for a donation after signing realize this is a request made from iPetitions, and not the Tea Party Express. We only need your signature for this effort - not your donation - and your signature is free.
We must REJECT ELENA KAGAN.‏