Enjoy Delphi Forums ad free!Click here.
CURRENT EVENTS -  How We Create Immorality (20856 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
Message 7 of 1292 was Deleted  

From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon5/12/11 8:48 AM 
To: Adults back in Charge! (CAPTAIN_B)  (8 of 1292) 
 588.8 in reply to 588.7 

May 12, 2011

      "That prompted an immediate "Wait a minute!" moment from members of Congress, who pointed out that it really wasn't up to the Navy to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act – the current law of the land."


Pentagon 'confused' over gender, needs help from Congress

Navy approves same-sex 'marriages,' then changes course, at least for now

The U.S. military is profoundly confused over the issue of gender, and needs help from Congress to steer a course through the controversy over open homosexuality in the ranks, according to a military analyst and critic of President Obama's campaign promise to homosexual organizations he would open the military for those who choose that lifestyle.

"Given the Pentagon's confusion, there is no way that the Obama administration can in good faith 'certify' that full implementation of repeal 60 days later would not do serious harm to our military," said Elaine Donnelly, the chief of the Center for Military Readiness, which has as its goal promoting "High standards and sound policies for our military men and women."

"Congress needs to receive and evaluate actual Defense Department directives before 'certification' occurs, not afterwards," she said. "Platitudes and PowerPoint slides are not regulations."

Her plea for order and common sense in the military came just after the U.S. Navy first announced that it would allow its chaplains to perform same-sex "marriages" at military bases, then abruptly changed course and suspended that statement. 

According to a report from Assocated Press, Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, chief of Navy chaplains, admitted he had made the decision, but then decided that it should be "suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and interdepartmental coordination."

Donnelly noted that even the reversal simply is untrustworthy:

"On April 13 the Navy Chief of Chaplains announced in a memo that when repeal of the law regarding homosexuals in the military is fully implemented, chaplains who wish to perform same-sex 'marriages' will be allowed to do so on military bases located in states where such unions are legal," she said.

"A second memorandum reported by The Washington Post purported to reverse this policy, but it does not reverse anything. Navy Chief of Chaplains Rear Adm. Mark L. Tidd has merely announced suspension of his earlier memo 'pending additional legal and policy review' and closer coordination with the Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard,'" she said.

"Congress should not be misled by the Navy's equivocation. This weather-vane policy is likely to change back as soon as all the branches of service get on board and Congress looks the other way," she continued. "Congress must intervene, since Defense Department lawyers don't know – or don't want to tell – what they are doing."

The original memo suggested "legal counsel has concluded that generally speaking, base facility use is sexual orientation neutral. If the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then base facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage. … This is a change to previous training that stated same-sex marriages are not authorized on federal property."

That prompted an immediate "Wait a minute!" moment from members of Congress, who pointed out that it really wasn't up to the Navy to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act – the current law of the land.

The letter, from U.S. Rep. Todd Akin and dozens of other members of the U.S. House, noted, "We find it unconscionable that the United States Navy, a federal entity sworn to 'preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States' believes it is their place alone to train and direct servicemembers to violate federal law."

"The Defense of Marriage Act protects the sanctity of the bond specifically between a man and a woman, and as defenders of the institution of marriage we agree with the vast majority of the American people that the preservation of marriage is critical to society's stability and is in the best interest of American families," the letter said.

"It is not the place of any citizen of this country to pick and choose which laws they are going to obey. We expect citizens sworn to defend those laws to set the example in their application," the letter said.

The letter, addressed to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus in the Pentagon, said, "We find it difficult to understand how the military is somehow exempt from abiding by federal law. Not only does this document [the announcement from Tidd] imply recognition and support of same-sex marriage in opposition to DOMA, but it also implies that the Navy will now perform these marriages…"

Donnelly pointed out that retired Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, who was the Army's Pacific Commander before his retirement this month, said the military cannot operate with different sets of rules for each state.

Mixon said, "Service in the military is not like a civilian job, so it stands to reason regulations and laws are needed that are different and unique to military service. We have rules governing infidelity, drugs and others that are not found in civil society. Using the Navy rationale for this misguided marriage policy, we would have to allow marijuana on certain installations or lesser punishments for violations in states that have lax laws. Our great military service members cannot operate effectively in this type of environment."

WND reported just days ago
...[Message truncated]

 Reply   Options 

Message 9 of 1292 was Deleted  

From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon5/18/11 8:06 AM 
To: All  (10 of 1292) 
 588.10 in reply to 588.9 

May 18, 2011


Bloomberg Goes to Albany to Promote Same Gender Marriage; Agudah Fights Back

On the same day that Mayor Mike Bloomberg jetted to Albany with his political ally NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn to promote same-gender marriage, Agudath Israel of America released a call for arms asking citizens for their help in fighting the “pernicious” proposal. Mayor Bloomberg made a point of saying that he would use his power and wealth to support Republicans who buck the establishment and support same-gender marriage.

The fight for same-gender marriage has renewed interest in a potential race to replace Senator Carl Kruger in the New York State Senate. Senator Kruger, a Democrat, has been a consistent “no” vote on same-gender marriage. However, the leading Democratic candidate to replace him, Councilman Lew Fidler, is a firm “yes” vote. Republicans are looking to recruit a candidate to run against Fidler in part on this issue. One of the names being floated is Mayoral aide Fred Kreizman. However, it is unclear if Fred shares his boss – Mayor Bloomberg’s view on same-gender marriage – or has his own. Regardless, Agudath Israel isn’t taking any chances and sent the letter below to their thousands of members:


TO: Agudath Israel of America constituents and friends in New York State

FROM: Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Esq., Executive Vice President, Rabbi Shmuel Lefkowitz, Vice President for Community Affairs


DATE:  May 17, 2011

The New York State Legislature is expected to vote soon on a bill that would legalize same-gender marriage.  This bill is both morally and legally unacceptable, and could lead to serious negative consequences.

The battleground for this legislation is likely to be in the New York State Senate.  We therefore urge you to take a minute right now and:

1. Call your State Senator and leave the message that you are deeply opposed to legalizing same-gender marriage and will be watching to see how the Senator votes on this important issue.  To be connected to your State Senator, or If you don’t know who your State Senator is, call the Senate operator at 518-455-2800.

2.  Please then pass this e-mail along to as many friends as you can who are likely to make similar calls.

Together, we can help defeat this pernicious legislation.


From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/5/11 8:11 AM 
To: All  (11 of 1292) 
 588.11 in reply to 588.10 

June 5, 2011


Schools to kids: You can be boys or girls or both

Family groups horrified by mandatory 'gender' classes for children

Pro-family organizations across the nation are expressing shock and alarm over a new wave of homosexual indoctrination developing in public schools – especially in California – where parents are not even given the option of withdrawing their kids from the mandatory lessons on being "gay" or more.

"Young children are being taught that they can choose to be a boy or a girl – or both," said officials at Mass Resistance, one of the leading organizations across the country defending the fact that students are boys or girls.

"Boys, for example, should be comfortable wearing girls' clothes and nail polish, etc. And there aren't just two genders, there can be a range. And, of course, the school does not allow parents to opt their kids out," the organization said.

It was citing the work of an elementary school in Oakland, where officials allowed an outside advocacy organization, Gender Spectrum, to tell young students that sexuality is what they want it to be, not necessarily what nature endowed them to be.

A Fox News report on the issue said the school officials defended their actions by explaining that all student "behaviors" have to be accepted and reinforced.


From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/15/11 8:37 AM 
To: All  (12 of 1292) 
 588.12 in reply to 588.11 

June 15, 2011


Gay judge's same-sex marriage ruling upheld

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal judge has a message for those trying to salvage California's gay marriage ban: Sure, the judge who threw out the measure last year is in a long-term relationship with a man, but he could still be fair to them.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge James Ware's ruling Tuesday rejected arguments that former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker would potentially benefit from declaring the ban unconstitutional.

In his 19-page decision - a response to the first attempt in the nation to disqualify a judge based on sexual orientation - Ware had a bigger message. Gay judges, he said, are just like minority and female jurists: They can be impartial, too, even in cases that might affect them.

"We all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right," he wrote. "The single characteristic that Judge Walker shares with the plaintiffs, albeit one that might not have been shared with the majority of Californians, gave him no greater interest in a proper decision on the merits than would exist for any other judge or citizen."

Ware upheld his retired predecessor's ruling that struck down Proposition 8.

Finding that Walker could not be presumed to have a personal stake in the case just because he has a same-sex partner, Ware wrote that the judge had no obligation to divulge whether he wanted to marry before he struck down the ban.

"The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief," he wrote.

Tuesday was a day filled with good legal news for the gay rights community.

In New York, state lawmakers are within one vote of joining Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia as places where same-sex couples can legally marry. And in Los Angeles, the country's largest consumer bankruptcy court sided with a gay couple seeking to file a joint bankruptcy petition, taking the extraordinary step of declaring that the federal law prohibiting same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

But Ware's ruling does not settle the legal fight over Proposition 8 in California.

The sponsors of the ban are planning to appeal. Lawyer Charles Cooper, who represents the conservative religious coalition that put the ban on a 2008 ballot, said he disagrees with the ruling.

ProtectMarriage.com, which filed the challenge, said it would appeal and "continue our tireless efforts to defend the will of the people of California to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman."

Meanwhile, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether Walker properly concluded that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violates their rights to due process and equal protection. The court also is eyeing whether the religious coalition is legally entitled to appeal Walker's verdict.

Ware's opinion came in response to an April motion by coalition lawyers that sought to have Walker's ruling vacated on conflict-of-interest grounds.

Walker publicly revealed after he retired in February that he is in a 10-year relationship with a man. Rumors that he was gay had circulated before and after the trial. Walker did not attend Monday's hearing on the matter and has declined to comment on the bias allegations.

Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group that spearheaded the successful effort to overturn Proposition 8 in Walker's court, called Ware's decision to reject the challenge a precedent-setting victory that advances equal rights and treatment for all Americans.

"This bigoted and homophobic motion will prove to be a real low point in the struggle for equality and full civil rights for gay and lesbian people," he said.

Some supporters saw greater meaning in Ware's ruling.

"This opinion is going to be in line with those (earlier) decisions with regard to race, ethnicity, gender and religious background that people will cite for many years in saying that gay judges, lesbian judges, are entitled to the same impartiality presumptions as all other judges," said Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney on the legal team that sued to overturn Proposition 8 on behalf of two unmarried same-sex couples

In his ruling, Ware cited previous cases dealing with women and minority judges in concluding that his predecessor had acted appropriately.

"The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification," he wrote.

Ware said Walker did not have a duty to disclose his romantic life and would have hurt "the integrity of the judiciary" if he had revealed his relationship during the trial.

Lawyers for backers of the ban argued at a hearing Monday that Walker should have recused himself or disclosed his relationship because he and his partner stood to personally benefit if the ban were invalidated and same-sex unions were again legal in California.


Message 13 of 1292 was Deleted  

From: WEBELIAHU DelphiPlus Member Icon6/22/11 5:29 PM 
To: Adults back in Charge! (CAPTAIN_B)  (14 of 1292) 
 588.14 in reply to 588.13 
     I have heard arguments that are beyond dumb but the people saying them think they are logical, for example, Should a non-homosexual married judge make a ruling concerning non-homosexual married people?

                         Best Wishes, Eliahu    
Host of the Judaism HQ forum
Host of the Noachism HQ forum              
"JEWISH EXPRESSIONS":  Creative and personalized gift ideas, and wonderful conversation pieces for your home.  Novel sundries, customized your way, that family, friends, and loved ones will appreciate and long remembered.   

"THE RIGHT WAY": Political Marketplace:  From George Washington to Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher, and now the new wave, featuring Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint & many others.   http://www.zazzle.com/TheRightWay*




Message 15 of 1292 was Deleted  

From: Impeach Xo Bai Den!! (ducky1988) DelphiPlus Member Icon6/22/11 5:44 PM 
To: All  (16 of 1292) 
 588.16 in reply to 588.14 
Whatever happened to the concept of judges doing nothing but APPLYING CURRENT LAW????

Navigate this discussion: 1-6 7-16 17-26 27-36 ... 1267-1276 1277-1286 1287-1292
Adjust text size:

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved.