In an incredible turn of events, California surprises again, and upholds the original vote in favor of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in the state of California.

As I have stated plenty of times before, I am a federalist, and I believe in local government and states’ rights.  I believe that if people vote for something it should be upheld and in this case, the people voted to ban gay marriage.  Since a majority voted that way in the most liberal state in the union, that says something.  It would not be right, just, or constitutional for a supreme court at the state level to overturn a majority vote – that is not democracy.

I saw one quote on twitter that stated:  Thank God we live in a republic and not a democracy regarding the hopeful overturn of prop. 8.  I don’t think this person quite understands what it is she is talking about.  Yes, we live in a republic (at least it is questionable to some if it truly is still a republic since there is too much government control) but we PRACTICE the PHILOSOPHY of democracy (government by the people, through representatives) – that is the point of voting.  For an entity to overturn a majority vote when that entity is only made up of 7 people, would be massively destructive to what a republic or the practice of democracy really and truly is.

I’m glad that California acted just in this case and stood by its voters – if a state believes in gay marriage or wants to accept it, it will vote that way.  Until then, whether you agree or not, the decision (the will of the people) must be upheld.

The final ruling will uphold prop. 8, but it will also uphold the 18K marriages that took place before the official ruling (which were perfectly legal at that time).  This law is very convoluted and will probably have some major issues in the future, but we won’t know until that time.  The Supreme Court of CA voted 6-1 in favor of upholding the vote from November.  The lone dissenter was Justice Moreno.

I have already seen the “tweets” from those who were hopeful that Prop. 8 would be overturned, calling California losers, M&*$@# F*%@#&$ and various other things.  They were hopeful that there would be tolerance shown towards them, but once the decision for the vote was upheld, they called everyone opposed to marriage, rednecks, hicks, intolerant bigots, etc.  I’m waiting for the upcoming mobs… those same mobs that tore a cross out of an old woman’s hands last November – and who exactly is intolerant?

Let us also not forget that Obama agrees with California’s decision…

Share on Facebook

Carrie Prejean has finally been exonerated.  Not like she should have been held to some unobtainable standard to begin with, but when you are a conservative, and religious at that, liberals feel as though you must either be 100% pure or you’re a hypocrite.

The liberal argument is basically about standards, if you dont’ have any you can’t be held accountable, so needless to say, those that stand on principles will incessantly get harassed by the media and the activists, waiting for the slightest mistake.

Carrie Prejean took photos for a modeling shoot, just as many other females have, who try to get into a career that pertains to beauty and looks.  I think the photos were actually very tasteful and they didn’t show any private body parts nor was she ever fully undressed.  I’m not sure where liberals get off trying to publicly galvanize this woman just for doing a photo shoot to get ahead in her field.  Kathy Ireland is a conservative and incredibly religious for that matter, but nobody made a stink when she was all over the covers of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition.  What about all those other celebrities that actually undress themselves and literally pose nude on the cover of Maxim, Playboy, etc.?  It’s ok because they don’t profess to be spiritual or believe in God?  If that’s the case I feel very sorry for those individuals.  They are truly missing out on a wonderful aspect of life that fills many voids I currently see in today’s society.

What amuses me most is the fact that liberals never catch onto the fact that Christian conservatives do not claim to be perfect, in fact it is quite the opposite.  We are trying to be more God-like and live a life similar to that of the apostle Paul (if I could choose an example).  Jesus believed in redemption and treated those who had fallen away and sinned, but came back, as his children.  The prodigal sons and daughters were always the closest to the heart of Jesus.  The only perfect entity in this world is God and it is us mere mortals who attempt to emulate as best we can his teachings, although we know we fall way short.  The only people who have difficulty understanding this concept are those who are either averse to the truth or fear that there may really be some higher power greater than themselves and their ideology.

I was happy to hear that earlier today Donald Trumpmade a statement that dropped the “charges” against Carrie Prejean and she was “allowed” to keep her title as Miss California. I hope she continues to be a champion of the 1st amendment and speaks her mind in a very mature and inviting way.  She deserves to be herself and believe in the things she does without being lambasted by those who feel differently.  Donald Trump made the ironic remark that “We are living in the 21st century…” basically telling all the critics to get a life and get real.  This is America, we are all allowed to have our own opinions, let’s hope that we never lose that.  Freedom is not free…

Oh and liberals… are you going to go after Obambi for his opinion that marriage is only between one man and one woman? —— Crickets…

Carrie, yet again, spoke very well during the press conference today, and here is the part that made me choke up… because of the truth in her words!

Share on Facebook

This just seems hypocritical to me.  I know many gay republicans and they are shunned by gays on the left – some like to keep to themselves and don’t feel they need to be “outed.”

Gays on the left argued about wanting their sex lives kept private and the law should not go into their bedrooms, however, this seems to be doing the very thing they rail against; they have no regard for privacy or decency.

I don’t think that this puts the gay community forward – this does not help their cause – people will see this as a witch hunt and an “outing” expedition… So wrong!

Share on Facebook

After an emotional debate, the D.C. Council gave final approval Tuesday to legislation that recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The vote is considered the first step toward eventually allowing gay marriages to be performed in Washington. Congress, which has final say over the city’s laws, will get 30 days to review the bill assuming Democratic Mayor Adrian Fenty, a supporter, signs it.

If Congress takes no action, the bill will become law automatically. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have not signaled where they stand on the D.C. bill. Obama generally supports civil unions but has said marriage is between a man and a woman.

“The march toward equality is coming to this country, and you can either be a part of it or stand in the way,” said David Catania, one of two openly gay D.C. Council members.

Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa already allow gay marriage and lawmakers in several other states are considering whether to do the same. New York recognizes gay marriages performed in other states.

The D.C. Council vote was 12-to-1, with former Mayor Marion Barry casting the lone opposing vote. Barry, a longtime supporter of the gay community, called it an “agonizing and difficult decision” that he made after praying and consulting with his constituents and the religious community.

Gay-marriage supporters greeted the vote with applause, but they were outnumbered at city hall by outraged opponents, including many black ministers.

Marion Barry originally voted for gay marriage but quickly sobered up and asked to change it to become the lone nay vote on the council:

After the D.C. Council voted unanimously to recognize same-sex marriages Tuesday morning, Councilman Marion Barry asked for his vote back, according to Washington Post reporter Tim Craig.

Apparently Mayor for Life, an opponent of the legislation, voted yea without knowing what he was voting on, but he woke up in time to ask that the bill be reconsidered, and the debate that was expected took place, to the relief of all the council members who wanted their two cents on the matter on record.

After an emotional debate, a second vote was taken, and it passed 12-1 with Barry as the lone opponent. Now it’s up to Congress, which has final say over the city’s laws and will subject the bill to a 30-day review after Mayor Adrian Fenty signs it as expected.

D.C. is almost 99% Democrat, but that does not necessarily that they are supportive of gay marriage…

The majority-black district is overwhelmingly Democratic, but public support for gay marriage is unclear. Exit polls in California indicated about seven in 10 black voters there weighed in against gay marriage in a November vote.

Don’t forget that there are many Hispanics who live in D.C. as well (similarly California) and they too oppose gay marriage because of their strong catholic backgrounds.

However, leave it to the liberals to lay the blame elsewhere, as they did in California.  They complained, berated, and shouted down Mormons; although the overwhelming majority who voted against gay marriage, were minorities.

The Rev. Anthony Evans, a pastor at Mount Zion Baptist Church in Washington, vowed to make sure the legislation dies in Congress and said he will work to unseat every D.C. Council member who voted for it.

“They just kissed their political careers goodbye,” he said.

The congressional review could be the new Congress’ first opportunity to signal its appetite for re-examining the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to do the same.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is openly gay, said he expects Congressional opponents of gay marriage to rally to repeal the city’s decision, but doubts they’ll get very far.

“For this to be overturned, it’d have to pass both houses and be signed by the president, and that’s highly unlikely,” Frank said.

An overflow crowd filled city hall ahead of the vote, and more than 100 opponents from churches in the Washington region held a rally across the street on Freedom Plaza. Among them was the Rev. Derek McCoy from the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md.

“Once you redefine marriage, you redefine family,” he said.

So at any point will politicians and judges actually practice some type of federalism or give up some power and control to allow their constituents the decision/vote on issues that will affect their lives and surroundings?  If the locale or state votes in favor then so be it but, if not then it does not become law.  Can we please use our Constitution which has allowed us to get as far as we have as a country?

Share on Facebook

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK are “named and shamed” by the Home Office.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October last year so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.

Dr Yunis Al-Astal
Hamas MP and dean of Sharia studies at The Islamic University of Gaza. Al Astal is claimed to have decreed that global Islam has to take over America’s dominance. He also decreed that killing Jews was relevant in our times.

Mike Guzofsky
Jewish militant, also known as Yekutiel Ben Yaakov. Hosted the internet TV show “Voice of Judea” and is considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fermenting terrorist behaviour and provoking others to commit terrorist acts.

Stephen Donald Black
American white nationalist and founder of the Stormfront internet forum. He was a grand wizard in the Ku Klux Klan and a member of the American Nazi Party in the 1970s. He was convicted in 1981 for attempted armed overthrow of the Dominican government.

Eric Gliebe
President of the racist record label Resistance Records, with sales of $1m a year and whose groups promote the idea the US should be divided by race, sexual preference and religious creed.

Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky
Last year a Russian court sentenced the group of skinheads led by Ryno and Skachevsky to between six and twenty years in prison. The court issued the ruling on the basis of the jury verdict, which found the seven group members guilty of 20 racially-motivated murders and 12 attacks.

Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim
Muslim cleric suspected of terrorist ties. Deported from the US in 2004. He said: “I came to this country in peace. I did not come here to scare anybody.”

Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal
Preacher considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence.

Michael Alan Weiner
Michael Alan Weiner, better known by his pseudonym Michael Savage, is an American radio host, author, and conservative political commentator. Some, including Savage himself, have characterized his views as conservative nationalism. He claims that liberalism and same-sex marriage are degrading American culture.

Safwat Hijazi
Islamic preacher. Issued a fatwa sanctioning “the killing of any Jews who visit Egypt or any other Islamic country.” He said later it was only “in reference to Israeli soldiers”.

Amir Siddique
Preacher. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.

Abdul Ali Musa
Muslim activist and director of Masjid Al-Islam in US. Member of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) and a well-known speaker around the world. His name was previously Clarence Reams, and he was born in Arkansas in 1945. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting and glorifying terrorist violence.

Samir Al Quntar
Samir Kuntar is a Lebanese militant and a former member of the Palestine Liberation Front. In 1979, at the age of 16, he participated in the attempted kidnapping of an Israeli family in Nahariya that resulted in the deaths of four Israelis and two of his fellow kidnappers. He spent nearly three decades in prison before being released on July 16, 2008 as part of an Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap.

Nasr Javed
Kashmiri militant group leader. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.

Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and Shirley Phelps-Roper
American pastor and leading spokesman of Westboro Baptist Church. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence in the UK. The 79-year-old and his daughter are barred for their anti-gay comments.
However, it is important to note that communists, dictators, black liberation theologists and preachers, black nationalists, black panther groups, national socialists and other statists on the left are all welcome to enter.  Just no right-wingers!  I was also surprised to see that Muslims were actually included in an English list… It appears that Gordon Brown’s administration is taking a page right out of Obama’s playbook!

Does this mean that Obama is banned for not advocating gay marriage either?

Why would you only single out a particular individual on the radio?  Are there not plenty of others that hold those same views?  And why would you bar someone from the country who just has an opinion that is different from other peoples’.  If he feels that gay marriage is degrading American culture than what is the big deal – is he not allowed to feel that way?  Can he not believe what he wants as long as he is not violent?  He doesn’t incite violence either… This sounds more fascist to me than anything else.  England says you must hold a particular view/opinion or else!

Paging Winston Churchill, England is about to pull another Neville Chamberlain – unfortunately, so is the United States!

Bill Ayers, Reverend Write, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Ted Turner and Jane Fonda are all on their way to England as we speak – they will be welcomed with open arms!  I heard Code Pink is piloting the plane.

Share on Facebook

Listen to this vile hate – sounds like two catty women gossiping and starting false rumors about a person who just wanted to state their own opinion and be outspoken about it.  And who is calling who superficial Michael Musto? When it comes to the gay agenda; if you don’t agree you must be exterminated – you cannot have your own opinion these days. I think Olbermann and Musto are actually doing their cause a disservice by continuing to harp on Ms. Prejean… just my opinion – most decent reporters would have let this die by now - the news has actually become the hate over at MSNBC; despicable.

But what strikes me as even worse than the invective by the predictable hateful left, (Olbermann & Musto) is the hypocrite who came onto The Factor last night as a so called feminist. I can’t stand these feminists. They are tools of the left used to push a liberal agenda through.  True feminists would care care about the rights of all women no matter what political ideology they represent. If these attacks were being made on some liberal Hollywood starlet or a liberal politician you can guarantee that the liberal feminists would be all over it.  Instead they make up some dumb excuse about the pageant and the fact that Ms. Prejean has fake breasts.

How can you utter justice and equality in one breath but then immediately state the someone needs a heart transplant? So she needs to be politically correct in order to receive justice and equality from the feminist groups?  But leave it to the so called feminists to bring up the breast implants because, for liberals, nothing is off limits and even the most trivial of details can be spun against somebody…

I may as well come out of the closet now! I have fake breasts… some females do it to look “normal,” more astethically pleasing, for self-esteem, because of cancer, because of deformities, etc. There are myriad reasons as to why people opt for an operation and if any one of these types of people were to hear this woman use the excuse that Carrie Prejean had it coming due to the fact that she had fake breasts, they would all be appalled. How many liberal women, esp. from the elite class and Hollyweird, have fake breasts? That’s what I thought… the statistics on how many women have them is staggering.   Breast augmentation and implantation is becoming as normal as anti-depressants in this country; so get over it and admit to your double standards. Feminists Tools of the Left make me sick!

Share on Facebook

A real showing of tolerance from the gay gentleman who is a part of the liberal party, professing to be tolerant of everyone.  Except of course those who may have a different opinion.  Of course the hypocrisy and irony of this is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and can protest publicly or state it publicly if they so choose.  You may not agree with Christians or Catholics and their stand against same sex marriage, but you have to allow them their own opinion and the freedom of speech as well.  The only way to get your point across is civil debate and discourse, but as I am finding out more and more, the only method that the liberals know how to use is the method of “shut-uppery.”  They, in essence, look like fools and never get their message across properly and only make things worse. 

Take for example the protests during the Prop. 8 fiasco this past November and the vandalism and violence by gay activists, where an elderly woman was shouted down and her cross taken from her and stomped upon in Florida.  Or a church in Michigan that had gay activists come in and tear up bibles and throw things around to disrupt a service.  This is unfortunately, making their cause less valid because people who once were for acceptance are against itm based on the fact that they are so hateful, intolerant and are full of bigotry themselves, they just seem to have an incredible inability to look in a mirror.

Share on Facebook

Had she been born a generation earlier, Kim Hoffman might have had a shotgun wedding. As it turned out, she and Steve Miller took the time to plan their dream nuptials — outdoors, on an organic farm, and with their 10-month-old daughter in tow.

A pre-marriage birth certainly wasn’t what her father wanted for his only daughter, said Hoffman, of Oakland, California. But seven months into her relationship with Miller, the unplanned pregnancy simply changed life’s course.

“We would have headed down this path. The pregnancy just accelerated things,” she said of the couple’s cohabitation, the birth of Sadie and their 2005 wedding. “It was the way it was meant to be.”

Along with magazine-cover grabbers like Angelina Jolie and Bristol Palin, Hoffman, today a 39-year-old mother of three, is part of a now record-breaking trend of women who give birth outside of wedlock.

Now, as usual, they lead off this adventure with sugar coating and rose colored glasses. This is a very A typical situation in America. I do applaud this mother of 3 (on what seem to at least a 2nd marriage) for doing the right thing. But obviously, they had plans and preparations and the means and where-with-all to successfully care for a new baby. This is where the breakdown occurs. By invoking the likes of Jolie, or other “celebrity” types, it sends a signal that this behavior is deemed healthy for the mother and child. However, it has been pointed out time and again, that the average woman in this situation, is by no means able to care for a child properly, does not have the support of a significant other, and the child ends up living life in less than loving and ideal conditions.

Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.

Percentages of births to unwed mothers among race groups, 72% rate for Blacks, 65% rate for Native Americans , 51% rate for Latinos , 28% rate among white and 17% among Asians.(1)

Statistics such as these, which include for the second year in a row a bump in teen pregnancies, after a 14-year decline, leave Sarah Brown concerned. She worries about the children born to unwed parents — about the disadvantages they often face, including increased likelihood of poverty and greater high school dropout rates.

Statistics show that a majority of these young unwed mothers, end up in situations where improving their life, while trying to shelter, feed and cloth an child proves overwhelming. Career, educational, and relationship (that would work) opportunities fall by the wayside in favor of the need to bring home a paycheck. Factor in the associated inflationary costs of raising a child where since the mid-70′s a two income household is pretty much required to have a modest home and car, these young women to often end up in dire straits.

Janet Kaufman wasn’t looking to influence anyone else; her personal decision, after loads of research, became a “practical matter.”

The University of Utah English professor was in her mid-30s, single and figured even if she met someone immediately it might be a couple years before she’d feel comfortable having a child with that man.

Here, yet again is another example of someone who “can” do this. A tenured professor, who could take a sabbatical, is well paid, well educated, and well situated. Now take the 17-22 year old, incomplete education, little job experience, probably living at home or in a low rent apartment, poor or no health care benefits and a low paying entry level job. That is the difference. Many of these girls are just in a losing proposition.

“I had some concerns and fears,” said Kaufman, 44, who ended up marrying one year after she had a second child by the same anonymous donor. “But I felt like with the right kind of support … somehow I would make it work.”

And many of these young women do not have a support network. So lets educate our children about choices and decisions they make. Lets shed light on the majority of these mothers who are in a situation where they are dependant upon aid to make ends meet, where there is no support, no significant other, and no chance to really improve their lives because it takes resources to do that. Many married or co-habitating couples are having difficulties. This new age of go it alone, among celebrities and well off women sends the wrong message. It is not about being cool with a baby, it is about being responsible enough to raise that baby for the next 18 years (and sometimes more).

(1) National Center for Health Statistics
(2) Block Quotes – Jessica Ravitz

Share on Facebook

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.

The ruling, viewed nationally and at home as a victory for the gay rights movement and a setback for social conservatives, means Iowa’s 5,800 gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24.

There are no residency rules for marriage in Iowa, so the rule would apply to any couple who wanted to travel to Iowa.

Shelly Wolfe and Melisa Keeton, who waited for word of the ruling outside the Polk County Recorder’s Office, immediately called their pastor anyway to make plans.

“We’re going to make it legal,” Keeton, 31, of Des Moines said.

Wolfe, 38, and Keeton, who is 21 weeks pregnant, went through a commitment ceremony two years ago. Their marriage certificate was among the 26 that were put on hold when Polk County Judge Robert Hanson’s decision to open the door for gay marriage was delayed until the high court could weigh in.

I know there are many who will not agree with me on this, and this is probably why I lean more Libertarian than truly conservative.  I do not believe in condemning behavior based on the law of a book such as the bible, especially when I know my own house is not clean.  I consider myself Christian, but I also do not feel right judging anyone else.  I have met many extraordinary gay men and women in my life and I’m not quite sure where I technically stand on the issue since I see it both ways.  I see the fact that all men and women are created equal, that this could be considered the pursuit of happiness, although many married couples will also argue that marriage isn’t happy – LOL.  I can also see the point of the social conservatives who declare that marriage is a religious and spiritual rite, however, many heterosexuals overlook that fact when they marry nowadays as well. 

That’s why I’m a strong believer in states’ rights and local government.  I don’t believe in federal mandates which would force this upon everyone if they are not ready.  But I strongly believe in localized government making better decisions on behalf of its constituents, whether you personally agree with the decision or not. 

I think shockingly, my opinion on the issue here, is best summed up by a Democrat:

Harkin, a Democrat, issued a written statement today that said: “my personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept. But I also fundamentally believe that same sex couples in a civil union should be entitled to all the basic legal protections and benefits of marriage.”

“I know that this decision will be very hard for many to accept,” he added. “But I also know that it will provide many committed same sex couples and families important rights, as well as an important sense of recognition and belonging.”

What do you think?

Share on Facebook