Archive for the ‘gay marriage’ Category

MIGOP 1st District Vice-Chair Calls for “Purging” Gays from the GOP

April 1, 2013

Yesterday, a shockingly extreme blog post written by Michigan Republican’s 1st District Vice-Chair Mary Sears was posted on the Schoolcraft County Republican Party’s website by the site’s administrators.  The post is titled, “End Of The GOP?”, and its premise is, “For too long the GOP has misinterpreted the big tent idea of Ronald Regan [sic].”

UPDATE: Since yesterday, the site administrators have placed the following disclaimer: “The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. While every caution has been taken to provide our readers with most accurate information and honest analysis, please use your discretion before taking any decisions based on the information in this blog.”

Toward the end of the post, Sears writes, “How then can we as Christians stay in a party that adopts Homosexuality [sic] into the fabric of the tent. I say we cannot. Homosexuals make up less than one percent of the total population. They must prey on our children to increase their numbers. Why then, would we, as a party, entertain this perversion? We as a party should be purging this perversion and send them to a party with a much bigger tent. When we lose track of foundational principles we lose the very essence of our party. By throwing God under the bus we become nothing more than the poor Democrats who have lost their way and by doing so have lost their party.”

Let’s focus in on that middle sentence… “We as a party should be purging this perversion and send them to a party with a much bigger tent.”  We as a party should be purging homosexuals and sending them to the Democratic Party?  Does that strike anyone else as wrong?

Now let’s take a look at the Republican Party platform… you know, the one that was adopted by the Republican National Committee last year and represents what Republicans nationwide believe: “We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”  And what was it that Ronald Reagan said?  Something like, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”

Clearly Sears’ idea of purging gays from the party fits neither with Reagan’s ideology, nor the GOP’s platform.  And that’s fine if it’s her personal opinion, but this woman represents the 1st District Republican Committee.  If that wasn’t bad enough, the Schoolcraft County GOP administrators posted that post on their blog–with no disclaimer of any kind.  A county GOP committee endorsing district executive board member advocating the idea of purging people from the party based on one issue?  That seems extreme, to put it lightly.

It also seems counterproductive to one of the stated purposes of the County Committee in its bylaws, which is to “benefit the general welfare of the Republicans of Schoolcraft County”.  In 2010, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals accounted for 3% of the vote, and 29% identified as supporting Republican Congressmen.  In 2012, they accounted for 5% of the vote, and 22% identified as voting for Romney.  The County Committee’s goal is to benefit the party, yet they support “purging” a group of voters So we should purge a group that adds 1% of the vote to the GOP column?  And while 1% doesn’t sound like a lot, why would you willingly ostracize a group of people who are trying to help you?

It is one thing to defend traditional marriage–something that remains a part of the party’s platform.  It is an entirely different thing to call for “purging” gays from the party because they are a “perversion” in the minds of some.  Ms. Sears seems to have ignored the party platform clause that calls for “respect and dignity.”  Traditional values can be defended in a respectful and dignified way.

We as a party cannot afford to lose any voters, and I welcome any gay, lesbian, or bisexual voter who agrees with even 51% of the party platform (for that matter, I welcome anyone who is willing to vote for Republicans more often than Democrats).  And to any gays, lesbians, or bisexuals reading this, let me tell you that Ms. Sears and the Schoolcraft County GOP do does not speak for the Republican Party that I believe in and defend.  And that is why I believe it is so important to write what I am writing today.  The members of the GOP who are embarrassed and offended by the hatred coming from some in our party need to stand up for what is right and defend what is actually in the party platform–respect and dignity.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

UPDATE: When I wrote my original post, the SCRP’s blog had the header, “Published March 31, 2013 | By SCRP“. Since then, I have talked to the chairman of the SCRP who has informed me that while the post was posted by “SCRP” (they should probably create a “Guest” account to post unofficial blog posts), they post opinion pieces from many people, and blog posts do not represent the SCRP.  I have since edited this post by striking out anything that has been revealed to be inaccurate.  I still think the original post should have been taken down by the SCRP, as it blatantly violates the party platform, but the SCRP has put a disclaimer up and posted a copy of this blog post.

It’s time for RNC Committeeman Dave Agema to Step Down

March 30, 2013

It’s time for Dave Agema to resign. His response to my email was inadequate; he refuses to apologize, even when I pointed out to him multiple factual inaccuracies about what he posted (he never responded to the second e-mail). I won’t copy and paste his whole email, as I never asked him permission to do that, but I’ll summarize: he defended his post by saying that most of it was accurate, although he could not vouch for all of it, and that he had been contacted by someone else who confirmed this. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it. I didn’t ask him to apologize for everything he posted; I simply wanted him to apologize for anything inaccurate and for the fact that as our RNC Committeeman, he posted the article without fact checking it. In today’s realm of social media, a repost without a disclaimer is treated as en endorsement by many, and if an RNC Committeeman cannot understand that, it is bad for the party to keep him as our RNC Committeeman.

And from what I’ve seen, it’s pretty apparent that Agema doesn’t know what he’s doing when it comes to social media:

Agema Tweet

It’s one thing to make an honest mistake and then apologize for it.  The tweet of the Onion article is a funny gaffe, but it adds to the image of Republicans being out of touch old, white men.  And that doesn’t help our problem of being a party that seems unappealing to young voters.

But his Facebook post was more than a gaffe.  It was more than insensitive.  He passed the information along without a disclaimer, presenting what is OBJECTIVELY inaccurate as fact, and that is unacceptable.

For the sake of the MI GOP, he should resign or be removed from his position.

Response to Dave Agema’s Facebook Post on Homosexuality

March 28, 2013

Yesterday, Michigan’s RNC National Committeeman Dave Agema posted a copy of Dr. Frank Joseph’s online article “Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals”.  The article uses studies done decades ago, most of which have been debunked by more recent studies; some of the other claims are just simply false.  This article does a good job of going through and detailing the false claims from the article.  At least 2 of the claims are easily debunked (and at that point, it doesn’t matter how many are false – if there’s at least one, then Agema should’ve put a disclaimer): (1) the APA still lists pedophilia in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; (2) the claim that homosexuals are much more promiscuous than heterosexuals was debunked by a survey done by a dating web site.

After posting the article, media outlets began picking up the fact that Agema had posted it and began blasting him for posting a “Homophobic Facebook Post”; some Michigan GOP activists and precinct delegates have begun calling for Agema to resign.

Agema has said he will not resign and defended his post, saying, “Some publications, and even a few liberal Republicans, have chosen to take the words of someone else and cast them as my own…. I think the piece was worth sharing given the debate over gay marriage that is happening in the Supreme Court.”

He later sent out an email saying, “First, I didn’t write these words, I simply posted them. More importantly, I will not back down. I will dig in and fight even harder to defend our conservative values from these attacks by liberals in the media, and even in our own party.”

MI GOP Party Chairman Bobby Schostak has responded by saying, “Our party remains in support of traditional marriage, but that should never be allowed nor confused with any form of hate or discrimination toward anyone. Any statement or message in contrast undermines our party’s platform and our common sense conservative message.”

And I wholeheartedly agree with Chairman Schostak who has responded perfectly to this; ultimately Agema has a right to say what he wants to say, but he needs to keep in mind that when he speaks, many people will see it as speaking for the MI GOP as a whole, rather than just himself.

I have sent the following email to Committeeman Agema, and I would encourage fellow precinct delegates and party members to contact him with your thoughts:

Committeeman Agema,

I have seen news reports regarding your Facebook post about homosexuality, and they concern me.  I am not going to immediately join the groups calling for your resignation.  I think that such calls are premature.  Everyone makes mistakes, and I believe that you should be given time to correct yours.

That being said, what you did was grossly irresponsible as a RNC National Committeeman.  You have to realize that when you post things on social media sites, you do more than express your own views; you speak for the MI GOP.  You have defended your actions saying that you did not write the post; you merely posted something that someone else had written as part of a dialogue on the issue of homosexuality.  That excuse just does not cut it for me.  I disagree with those who have said those words were your own; they clearly were not; however, when you posted the article, you should have put such a disclaimer along with it.

The problem with what you posted is that that article is full of factually inaccurate statements (such as that pedophilia has been removed from the APA’s list of mental illnesses) and outdated studies.  Conservatives and the GOP will lose the public debate on such issues when the left can easily debunk the premises that our conclusions are founded upon.  How can our conclusions be taken seriously when the “facts” used to defend them are shown to be lies or outdated by decades?  They cannot.

Please do the right thing and come out and fully apologize for posting this article.  You are a party leader; it is unacceptable to pass along something as true when you could have so easily fact checked it to determine that these claims are not true.  To not do so not only does a disservice to your good name, but to the party’s image.

As I said, everybody makes mistakes, and while this was a big mistake, the party can move past it if you apologize.  But to react by simply making excuses is unacceptable.

I truly hope that you will take my words to heart and consider issuing an apology instead of excuses.  That is the best action for both you, and more importantly, for the party that you represent.

I’ll close by saying again, that I think calls for his resignation are premature.  If Agema says that he merely posted this as part of the debate on gay marriage, then I will take him at his word and believe that he does not agree with everything in the article; however, he needs to directly come out and say this.  This post was more than insensitive; it was objectively inaccurate, and inaccuracies such as this will only hurt the GOP image and message.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

Maine Gay Marriage Proposal Prediction: Voters Will Reject Gay Marriage

November 3, 2009

Alright, there’s one thing that I left off of my predictions from earlier, when I did the New Jersey/Virginia Gubernatorial Elections and the New York 23rd Senate election.  The other major election tomorrow (other than NYC Mayor, where Bloomberg will easily win), is Maine Question 1:

Question 1: People’s Veto

An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom

“Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”

And here’s a link to the law being voted on, courtesy of the Maine Secretary of State: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/samesexmarriage.pdf.

Here’s my prediction:

Question 1: People’s Veto:

  1. Yes – 50.8%
  2. No – 49.2%

Now – here’s my reasoning: The polls have had question 1 failing most of the time; however, Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling firm has shown it with a 4% lead as of the last poll (and that was the latest poll to come out).  Other polls have shown the margin narrowing, so with the PPP poll having the Yes’s taking over the No’s, I think the question will pass.

Also, there has never been a public vote that has gone in favor of gay marriage.  I think Maine will keep this trend up, and I think the voters will overturn what the legislature did; however, the vote will be close – that’s for sure.

Tomorrow should be an all around interesting day.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican

We Should Be Proud of Miss California, and Perez Hilton Should Be Ashamed

April 22, 2009

gallery_photo1239121941swim_californiaAlright, I’m sure many of you have heard the recent controversies surrounding the recent Miss USA pageant and Miss California’s (Carrie Prejean) answer to a question on gay marriage.  Here’s a video of that question, asked by judge Perez Hilton (video courtesy of NBC):

Alright, now, that answer was criticized by many, including Perez Hilton.  Here’s the video that he posted later that night:

I have a few problems with Perez Hilton (other than the fact that he’s obnoxious and I can’t stand him):

  1. He complains that she wasn’t politically correct, and that Miss USA needs to be politically correct.  Well, I’m glad that Perez Hilton believes in being politically correct.  That must be why he called her “a dumb bitch,” and that must be why he went on MSNBC and say that he “was thinking the ‘c’-word, and I didn’t say it.”  Well, Perez, we’re glad that you’re defending political correctness, except when it comes to women.  Had she have called you a “fag,” you’d have been up in arms (and rightfully so).  Show her some respect even if you disagree with her.
  2. He said that she should have said, “I think that that is a question that each state should decide for themselves, because that’s how our forefathers designed our government.”  Well, that would’ve been a nice politically correct answer, but Perez’s question was, “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit.  Why or why not?”  Saying that it should be up to the states to decide would not have been answering the question.

Perez has since come out and apologized, and then on MSNBC, he took back his apology (and indirectly called her “the ‘c’-word”).

Personally, I agree with Carrie Prejean.  I am glad that states have the right to decide; however, I personally think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  She didn’t answer the question poorly, she just answered it honestly.  She said that she was glad that Americans have the option to choose, but when she goes to the voting booth, she’ll chose to not allow it.

Perez Hilton shouldn’t have even been a judge in my opinion.  His video saying that if she’d have won, he’d have run on stage and snatched the crown from her shows me that he shouldn’t be judging the contest.  If he can’t live with the result of the contest if it doesn’t go how he wants, he should not be a judge.

I’ll conclude this by saying that I think this may have cost Prejean the crown (Perez Hilton himself told ABC, “She lost it because of that question.  She was definitely the front-runner before that.”); however, she may have ended as runner up anyway, so congratulations to Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton.

Carrie, you’re a true American hero.  Thank you for standing up for what you believe in.  You’re an amazing icon to young women all over the country, and I respect you.  God bless you, and I wish you the best of luck in life.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

Connecticut Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

October 10, 2008

The Connecticut Supreme Court has just ruled in a lawsuit, filed by 8 gay couples back in 2004, on gay marriage.  The Court has overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, making Connecticut the third state to allow gay marriage (Massachusetts and California being the other 2).  I’ll have an overview of the Court’s opinion once it’s out later.

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Focus on the Family’s James Dobson Will Endorse John McCain

July 27, 2008

Early last week (while I was on vacation), I saw a news story about Dr. James Dobson, from Focus on the Family, saying that he might endorse McCain.  So, I dug around and found the whole quote, from Dr. Dobson’s July 21st podcast.  With him is Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  The podcast is originally available on the Focus on the Family website:

MOHLER: I have to tell you, I find Barack Obama to be a very attractive person, a very attractive candidate. I would want to vote for him. But the closer I look at his positions, the more alarmed I become. He is the candidate who bills himself as a candidate of change, and in an odd way he is, just not the kind of change that I think most Americans now understand. So, Doctor, when I look at this, I have to say we’re looking at the most liberal candidate, I think, to gain a party nomination probably in the history of this country. And on so many of the issues, far beyond even where a Bill Clinton was. That’s what I think most Americans don’t understand. Many evangelicals don’t understand, particularly younger evangelicals. This is a man who has staked out his positions for the last 20 years in a way that is markedly beyond where most Americans believe he is.

DOBSON: I think he’s more liberal and more extreme than most Democrats in the Senate.

[…]

DOBSON: That, and the fact that I’m so very concerned about Senator Obama and what he believes and stands for, as well as the need to rethink some of my views regarding Senator McCain, and that thinking has taken place and continues to do so. This is been the most difficult moral dilemma for me. It’s why you haven’t heard me say much about it, because I have struggled on this issue. And there’s some concerns here that matter to me more than my own life, and neither of the candidates is consistent with my views in that regard. But Senator McCain is certainly closer to them than Senator Obama by a wide margin, and there’s no doubt about — at least no doubt in my mind — about whose policies will result in more babies being killed or who will do the greatest damage to the institution of marriage and the family. I’m convinced that Senator McCain comes closer to what I believe.

So, I am not endorsing Senator McCain today. I don’t even know who his vice presidential candidate will be. You know, he could very well choose a pro-abortion candidate, and it would not be unlike him to do that because he seems to enjoy frustrating conservatives on occasions. But as of this moment, I have to take into account the fact that Senator John McCain has voted pro-life consistently, and that’s a fact. That he says he favors marriage between a man and a woman; I believe that. He opposes homosexual adoption. He favors smaller government and lower taxes, and he seems to understand the Muslim threat, which matters a lot to me. I’m very concerned about that. Therefore — therefore — I have considered the fact that elections always involved imperfect candidates. There are no perfect human beings, and you always have to choose between two flawed individuals. That’s the way we’re all made. So, it comes down to this, and I never thought I would hear myself saying this, but it’s where I am — that while I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might, and that’s all I can say at this time.

Transcript from Media Matters.

I’ve bolded the crucial part of that podcast.  And this is essentially Dr. Dobson saying that he’ll endorse McCain.  Unless McCain picks a liberal, pro-choice running mate (like Lieberman), he’ll get Dobson’s endorsement, which equates to at least 95% of the Religious Right vote.  And McCain won’t pick Lieberman or any pro-choice candidate.  He’ll have a hard enough time securing the party base (Religious Right and others) without picking some liberal.  He won’t pick Lieberman just because of his Iraq stance (as I’ve said before).

Dr. Dobson sent a written statement to the Associated Press, saying, “There’s nothing dishonorable in a person rethinking his or her positions, especially in a constantly changing political context.  Barack Obama contradicts and threatens everything I believe about the institution of the family and what is best for the nation.  His radical positions on life, marriage and national security force me to reevaluate the candidacy of our only other choice, John McCain. … If that is a flip-flop, then so be it.”  He did that to keep the AP from saying what I’m saying now – that his statements are essentially and endorsement.  I do see where he’s coming from – he doesn’t want to endorse him until he picks a VP, just in case, but that VP will be Mitt Romney, and Dobson will be fine with that, and endorse the Republican ticket.

McCain will get almost all of the Religious Right vote, as I’ve previously said, and ultimately, he’ll win the election.

I’ll keep you updated on the Dobson endorsement, as time goes on.

Done Predicting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Michigan Supreme Court : No More Health Benefits for Gays’ Partners

May 8, 2008

Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court decided a case dealing with whether or not public employers are allowed to provide health care benefits to partners of homosexuals.  The Court reached that decision in a 5-2 vote in the case of National Pride At Work v. Governor of Michigan.

Here’s an excerpt from the opinion, written by Justice Stephen Markman:

 We granted leave to appeal to consider whether the marriage amendment, Const 1963, art 1, § 25, which states that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees’ qualified same-sex domestic partners. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that providing such benefits does violate the marriage amendment, we affirm its judgment.

CONCLUSION

The trial court held that providing health-insurance benefits to domestic partners does not violate the marriage amendment because public employers are not recognizing domestic partnerships as unions similar to marriage, given the significant distinctions between the legal effects accorded to these two unions.
However, given that the marriage amendment prohibits the recognition of unions similar to marriage “for any purpose,” the pertinent question is not whether these unions give rise to all of the same legal effects; rather, it is whether these unions are being recognized as unions similar to marriage “for any purpose.”
Recognizing this and concluding that these unions are indeed being recognized as similar unions “for any purpose,” the Court of Appeals reversed. We affirm its judgment. That is, we conclude that the marriage amendment, Const 1963, art 1, § 25, which states that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees’ qualified same-sex domestic partners.

Stephen J. Markman
Clifford W. Taylor
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.

Justice Marilyn J. Kelly wrote the following in her dissent:

The issue we decide is whether the so-called “marriage amendment” of the Michigan Constitution prevents public employers from voluntarily providing health benefits to their employees’ same-sex domestic partners. The majority has determined that it does. I disagree.

First, the language of the amendment itself prohibits nothing more than the recognition of same-sex marriages or similar unions. It is a perversion of the amendment’s language to conclude that, by voluntarily offering the benefits at issue, a public employer recognizes a union similar to marriage. Second, the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment strongly suggest that Michigan voters did not intend to prohibit public employers from offering healthcare benefits to their employees’ same-sex partners. The majority decision does not represent “the law which the people have made, [but rather] some other law which the words of the constitution may possibly be made to express.”
Accordingly, I dissent.

CONCLUSION

The majority decides that the “marriage amendment” prevents public employers from voluntarily entering into contractual agreements to provide health benefits to their employees’ same-sex domestic partners. Its decision is contrary to the people’s intent as demonstrated by the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment and as expressed in the amendment’s language. For
those reasons, I must dissent.

Furthermore, by proceeding as it does, the majority condones and even encourages the use of misleading tactics in ballot campaigns by ignoring the extrinsic evidence available to it. CPM petitioned to place the “marriage amendment” on the ballot, telling the public that the amendment would not prohibit public employers from offering health benefits to their employees’ samesex domestic partners. Yet CPM argued to this Court that the “plain language of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment” prohibits public employers from granting the benefits at issue. Either CPM misrepresented the meaning of the amendment to the State Board of Canvassers and to the people before the election or it misrepresents the meaning to us now. Whichever is true, this Court should not allow CPM to succeed using such antics. The result of the majority’s disregard of CPM’s preelection statements is that, in the future, organizations may be encouraged to use lies and deception to win over voters or the Court. This should be a discomforting thought for us all.

Marilyn Kelly
Michael F. Cavanagh

Here’s the copy of Proposal 2 of 2004:

PROPOSAL 04-2

 

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN

BE RECOGNIZED AS A “MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION” FOR ANY PURPOSE

 

The proposal would amend the state constitution to provide that “the union of one man and one

woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any

purpose.

And here’s an excerpt from the the Constitution (Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 1, Constitution of Michigan of 1963, Constitution-I, Article I, § 25):

§ 25 Marriage.

Sec. 25.

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

Many people who disagree with the ruling cite sources from the Michigan Christian Citizens Alliance’s committee, Citizens for the Protection of Marriage (CPM), when they said that the amendment was simply about marriage.  One source was a CPM brochure:

Proposal 2 is Only about Marriage

Marriage is a union between a husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is—for families today and future generations.

Well, honestly, brochures aren’t legal documents.  That was a brochure to get more people to vote for the amendment.  It may have been unethical, but it wasn’t illegal, and the Supreme Court’s job is not to interpret a brochure, but the Constitution, and the constitution clearly states, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose” (emphasis mine), and determining health care benefits is one of those purposes.  I agree with the Court’s ruling.

I just don’t think that the government should be rewarding people for sinning.  I don’t support gay marriage or civil unions as they’ve been proposed so far.  What I WOULD support is the government to remove itself from marriages and give civil unions to any 2 people who wanted it (brother and sister, mother and daughter, husband and wife, a man and his neighbor, etc).  That would make it so that those 2 people could have whatever benefits they want, and it removes “love” completely from the picture and makes it purely objective.  But that will never happen.  Why?  Because gays want their time to shine, and if they are given rights with a bunch of other people, it won’t be something new and exclusive to them.

So, again, I fully support the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in this case.  It doesn’t matter what the “intentions” of the amendment were, wording is wording, and it seems pretty clear to me what that wording means.

(I will now list the other plaintiffs in this case: Becky Allen, Dorthea Agnostopoulos, Adnan Ayoub, Meghan Bellanger, Judith Block, Mary M. Brisbois, Wade Carlson, Courtney D. Chapin, Michael Chapman, Michelle Corwin, Lori Curry, Joseph Darby, Scott Dennis, Jim Etzkorn, Jill Fuller, Susan Halsey-Ceragh, Peter Hammer, Debra Harrah, Ty Hiither, Jolinda Jach, Terry Korreck, Craig Kukuk, Gary Lindsay, Kevin McMann, A.T. Miller, Kitty O’Neil, Dennis Patrick, Tom Patrick, Gregg Pizzi, Kathleen Poelker, Jerome Post, Barbara Ramber, Paul Renwick, Dahlia Schwartz, Alexandra Stern, Gwen Stokes, Ken Cyberski, Joanne Beemon, Carol Borgeson, Michael Falk, and Matt Scott. “Plaintiff National Pride at Work, Inc., is a nonprofit organization of the American Federation of Labor–Council of Industrial Organizations. The remaining plaintiffs are employees of the city of Kalamazoo, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Eastern Michigan University, Wayne State University, the Clinton/Eaton/Ingham County Community Mental Health Board, or the state of Michigan and those employees’ same-sex partners. Because the benefit plans of Eastern Michigan University, Wayne State University, and the Eaton/Clinton/Ingham Community Mental Health Board are not part of the record, they are not discussed. Likewise, this opinion does not address whether private employers can provide health-insurance benefits to their employees’ same-sex domestic partners.”)

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::

Still No Gay Marriage for Maryland

September 19, 2007

Yesterday, Maryland’s high court upheld the state’s 1973 ban on same-sex marriages, in a lawsuit filed by 19 gay couples represented by the ACLU.

Good job Maryland!  Yet another state is added to the states that desire to protect the sanctity of marriage.

I really have nothing else about this, other than to thank the 4 out of the 7 judges that decided to uphold the ban.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican


%d bloggers like this: