Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    RULING: Gays Can Now Sponsor Foreign Partners for Immigration to USA

    RULING: Gays Can Now Sponsor Foreign Partners for Immigration to USA

    Wednesday, June 26, 2013

    The Supreme Court’s ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional should immediately open up immigration benefits to same-sex partners in states where their unions are recognized as marriages.
    The 5-4 decision ruled that federal benefits pertaining to marriage couples cannot be denied to same-sex couples who are married, and that states can recognize those marriages. The issue at hand was an inheritance case, but analysts said the ruling signals the same principle applies to all federal benefits such as Social Security and taxes.
    “This is a huge day not only for the LGBT movement, but also for the immigrant rights’ movement,” said Jorge Gutierrez, who leads the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project for United We Dream, a group of young illegal immigrants. “This Supreme Court decision affirms that all families and individuals should be treated fairly and with justice.”

    Post Continues on www.washingtontimes.com

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    57
    OBAMA: I won’t force churches to conduct gay weddings

    Wednesday, June 26, 2013

    President Obama, in his statement hailing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, promised that he wouldn’t try to force religious institutions to conduct gay marriages.
    “On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital,” Obama said. “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”
    Here’s guessing that the Roman Catholics and other religious groups that are in the midst of fighting the contraception mandate are skeptical of that pledge.
    “[T]he administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when the mandate was first unveiled last January.

    Post Continues on washingtonexaminer.com

    Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/06/oba...#ixzz2XihZuqNO



    Oh my the KING is exercising his power by decreeing a ruling..Hmmmm I am not impressed in the least..

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546

    And Now… the Consequences of Redefining Marriage

    Wednesday, June 26, 2013

    While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought.
    Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex “marriage.” As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.
    We are encouraged that the court learned from the disaster of Roe v. Wade and refrained from redefining marriage for the entire country. However, by striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is absurd.
    The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex “marriages” in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers.
    For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their “marriage?” This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.
    We are disturbed that the court refused to acknowledge that the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to defend Proposition 8. This distorts the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The Court’s decision allows the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge.
    Ironically, by refusing to defend the law, California’s executive branch has also denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
    What is inevitable is that the male and female relationship will continue to be uniquely important to the future of society. The reality is that society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad.

    Post Continues on cnsnews.com

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Gay Rights Activists Protest Rubio’s Immigration Position as Anti-Gay

    Wednesday, June 26, 2013

    Three left-wing self-described Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) activists, from the organization “GetEQUAL,” staged a sit-in in the Tampa office of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), demanding even more radical immigration reforms than those he has championed as a member of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight.”
    According to a release by the group, the three activists were protesting in Rubio’s district office “calling for an end to his dangerous moves to radically increase border security in the Senate immigration bill and for an end to his obstruction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”
    Rubio’s staff called the police, and officers came to escort them away. The group said in its press release that a Rubio staffer recommended to police that they deport one of the three activists because he is here in the United States illegally.
    “As these activists were being led away from Sen. Rubio’s office for drawing attention to these regressive views and to call on Sen. Rubio to ‘evolve’ his views on immigration and employment discrimination, a Rubio staffer told the police officers in the room that one of the people in the room–GetEQUAL Co-Director Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez–‘is here illegally,’” the press release reads.
    At that point, the organization wrote that despite “the officer proceeded to ask Felipe whether he has papers, and asked to see his drivers license.”
    “Felipe is undocumented, sent to the U.S. by his mother in Brazil,” the organization noted in its release about his status in the U.S. “He has a work permit under the Obama Administration’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program (or DACA). He is also a DREAMer–the name given to young people brought or sent to the U.S. by family members to escape poverty and seek a better life.”
    Sousa-Rodriguez said that despite his work on the “Gang of Eight,” Rubio is still “anti-immigrant.”


    Post Continues on www.breitbart.com

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Wednesday, 26 June 2013 18:30 High Court Rulings Strike Blows to DOMA, California's Prop. 8

    Written by Dave Bohon








    The Supreme Court used a pair of anticipated rulings June 26 to strike a blow to traditional marriage in the United States. The ruling against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), along with a decision to let stand a lower court ruling striking down California's Proposition 8 marriage protection amendment, had homosexual activists looking hopefully toward a full-blown legalization of same-sex marriage across the nation, and conservative, pro-family leaders vowing to continue their efforts to protect traditional marriage.

    In the DOMA case, which has the most far-reaching consequences for marriage across America, the High Court struck down a key provision of the law barring “married” same-sex couples from receiving the same federal tax, health, and retirement benefits that traditional married couples enjoy. The American Center for Law and Justice explained that in effect, the 5-4 ruling means that “the federal government must provide the same benefits to same-sex spouses as opposite-sex spouses, if the same-sex marriage has been lawfully performed. In other words, if a gay couple is married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then the federal government will recognize that marriage on the same basis as a traditional marriage.”
    Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the “avowed purpose and practical effect of [DOMA] are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”
    Kennedy — an erstwhile “conservative” justice whose siding with Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan made the majority — opined that the “principal effect” of DOMA was to “identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.”
    Writing a dissent for the minority justices, which also included Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia insisted that “to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.”
    Signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 with overwhelming clearance by both the House and Senate, DOMA provided a traditional definition of marriage for the benefit of federal laws and business, barring homosexual relationships from recognition for IRS or Social Security purposes and prohibiting the same-sex partners of homosexual federal employees from sharing in insurance and other employment benefits.
    Mr. Clinton insisted that circumstances of the time compelled him to sign DOMA into law, and that he now views the law as unconstitutional. “Among other things, [homosexual] couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse, or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees,” Clinton said. “Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities, and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.”
    Among those praising the High Court's ruling on DOMA were President Obama, who said in a statement that the law “treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it.”
    By contrast, Austin R. Nimocks, Senior Counsel for the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, said that the High Court “got it wrong in saying that a state that has redefined marriage can force that definition on the federal government. The federal government should be able to define what marriage is for federal law just as states need to be able to define what marriage is for state law. Americans should be able to continue advancing the truth about marriage between a man and a woman and why it matters for children, civil society, and limited government.”
    He added that “marriage — the union of a husband and wife — is timeless, universal, and special, particularly because children need a mother and a father. That’s why 38 states and 94 percent of countries worldwide affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman, just as diverse cultures and faiths have throughout history.”
    Other pro-family and conservative groups offered similar reaction to the High Court decision. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission called the ruling “far-reaching, with massive implications for family life and religious liberty. The grounding of this decision in equal protection and human dignity means this is not simply a procedural matter of federalism. This is a new legal reality.”
    In the case of California's Proposition 8, the voter-passed constitutional amendment defining marriage in that state as only between a man and a woman, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's supporters lacked legal standing to appeal the lower court's ruling that struck it down in 2010. “The public is currently engaged in an active political debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the 5-4 majority in the case. “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.”
    Baptist Press News noted that the ruling on Prop 8 “made for an unusual mixture of conservative and liberal justices on each side. Joining Roberts in the majority were Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Dissenting were Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.”
    Predictably, following the ruling California Gov. Jerry Brown lost no time in announcing that he had directed the California's Department of Public Health to “advise the state's counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses” to homosexual couples throughout the state once the Ninth Circuit of Appeals makes its final ruling in response to the Supreme Court's decision. The Ninth Circuit had earlier affirmed the ruling of a federal judge striking down Prop 8.
    Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council expressed relief that the the justices limited their decision only to California, noting that they “could have gone much further and struck down the marriage amendments which are in 30 states. They did not do that. This only applies to California, and how it's going to be implemented we don't yet know as we are still combing through the opinion.”
    Responding to the Court's ruling, the ADF's Austin Nimocks, a member of Prop 8's legal team, said that “despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the debate over marriage has only just begun. The court’s decision does not silence the voices of Americans. Marriage — the union of husband and wife — will remain timeless, universal, and special, particularly because children need mothers and fathers. This has been the experience of diverse cultures and faiths throughout history, including the American experience, and that will not change.” He added that “Americans will continue advancing the truth about marriage between a man and a woman and why it matters for children, civil society, and limited government.”

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15828-high-court-rulings-strike-blows-to-doma-california-s-prop-8


    I think a can of worms has been opened and we all will suffer for it.. Of course I hope it is the corporation that suffers the most but somehow I doubt it.....they always make us pay somehow..



  6. #6
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    CLAIM: OBAMA HID 'GAY LIFE' TO BECOME PRESIDENT

    Chicago homosexual community shocked he could keep it secret

    09/11/2012 JEROME R. CORSI



    A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.

    “It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.

    “Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.

    DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”

    “If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.”

    Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”

    Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.

    “It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.

    WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The upscale fitness club, which has some 10,000 members, is not a “gay” facility. But it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym,” where homosexuals meet and engage in sexual activity.

    In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tellshis story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”

    WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.

    In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.

    WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.

    DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.

    “People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said.
    “Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said.

    ‘Obama’s secrets’

    DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.”

    He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

    “Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said.

    DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.”

    “I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said.

    He pointed to Obama’s association with convicted Chicago real estate magnate Tony Rezko, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

    “Obama was a dirty politician that the media never wanted to vet – that’s what concerned me about Obama,” Du Jan said.

    DuJan spoke further of his claims about Obama in an interview Monday night on Andrea Shea King’s show on BlogTalkRadio.com, which included questions from WND during the last half of the show.

    Man’s Country

    Madsen published an article in his Wayne Madsen Report in May 2010 claiming Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were members of the same bathhouse in Chicago.

    “President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bathhouse in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city,” Madsen wrote.

    He said the bathhouse, “Man’s Country,” catered “to older men,” noting “it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of uptown Chicago’s ‘grand old bathhouses.’”

    Madsen wrote his 2010 report after traveling to Chicago to interview bartenders and customers at several “gay” bars.

    DuJan gave WND a list of “gay” bars in Chicago where older customers hang out and tell stories about how Obama, prior to 2004, frequented visited to pick up men for sex, including several on Halstead Street, widely known as an “uber-gay Chicago street.

    Writing in HillBuzz.org Tuesday, DuJan said rooms at Man’s Country bathhouse are still referred to as the “presidential suite,” or the “Oral Office,” because “the current President used to haunt the place when he was a just another Illinois state senator that no one had ever heard of or cared about.”

    DuJan said he believes that, someday, “all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie.”

    “Someday,” he said, “in the next 10-20 years, everyone will know all about Man’s Country, and the place will no doubt get a plaque of sometime commemorating that place as a gay hangout for the future leader of the free world.”


    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-oba...UFiI83y7GKJ.99


    All 3 Homosexual Members Of Obama’s Trinity Church Murdered Within 6 Weeks.
    http://patdollard.com/2011/11/mother...ver-speaks-up/
    Last edited by Newmexican; 06-30-2013 at 05:13 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •