Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/rush-limbaugh-regardless-supreme-court-ruling-gay-marriage-234407342--abc-news-politics.html
Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is 'Inevitable'
3/28/13

In his radio show today, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said defenders of traditional marriage have lost the battle, even though the Supreme Court won't hand down its decisions for another few months.

"I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable," Limbaugh said, "and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this."

Limbaugh took issue with the idea that the word marriage was already applied to gay couples. Therefore, he asserted, modifiers like "hetero" or "opposite-sex" are now at times added to denote a union between a man and a woman.

"I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word 'marriage' to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it - because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything," the radio host said. "Marriage is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way."

On Wednesday, he made a similar prediction, saying that gay marriage would soon become legal " nationwide."

Earlier this year, Limbaugh compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

Today, he claimed discrimination against gay couples "is not an issue."

"No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits. There's nobody that wants to deny them that. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can't have, by definition. By definition - solely, by definition - same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we're dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it's not and never has been."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh Rush - you forgot to say who appointed Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Conner, and David Souter to the high court...yep, your "hero" Ronald Reagan appointed the first 2(and his VP turned President Bush I appointed the latter). All of whom planted the seeds over the long haul for what we're seeing now.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://theweek.com/article/index/241898/how-gay-rights-tipped-so-quickly
How gay rights tipped so quickly
March 26, 2013, at 5:27 PM

In some ways, today's Supreme Court arguments over California's Proposition 8 were overshadowed by the decision of several Democratic senators from red or purple states to openly and actively support marriage equality. Actually, even that pales in comparison to Richard Land, the key Southern Baptist political evangelist, who just said, basically, "never mind," when it comes to the next generation of evangelicals being uncomfortable about gay rights. To be sure, he still opposes gay rights, still thinks that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, and believes that anti-gay leaders are being ostracized from polite society. On that last part, he's kind of correct. The zone of tolerance for acceptable viewpoints has narrowed very quickly.

Why has the structure of the gay rights debate shifted so quickly? The Week's Peter Weber has found six reasons. I have some guesses, a few obvious ones, and a few not-so-obvious, and I'm going to try to put them in order of importance.

First: Harvey Milk had it right. All politics is personal. Self-identified gays make up about three and a half percent of the population. That means that almost everyone with a social life in America knows someone who is gay. In fact, nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed say that someone close to them is gay. (Sarah Palin's best friend is gay.) Of those who've changed their minds on the issue, the plurality say that they expanded their circle of empathy simply because their circle came to include gay people.

But here's the important point: In order for this to happen, gay people had to take risks and come out. So: The pressure within the gay community to stigmatize "the closet," a pressure that can be pretty intense at times, has paid off.

It follows that people still won't come out if the social and personal penalties for doing so are high. But concerted efforts by gay rights activists and by Hollywood, working separately, have made the environment everywhere more hospitable for gay people, even in places where anti-gay prejudice remains high. Hollywood's pro-gay tilt is not a conspiracy. It is, just like Hollywood's pro-military tilt, an indelible fact driven by personal political orientation as well as economics. In conjunction, gay politics got smarter after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court instituted gay marriage in that state, which provoked a revanchist backlash in a number of states. 

From here, the 2008 presidential campaign plays a pivotal role. Yes, Barack Obama didn't support marriage equality at first. But the prime movers of his electoral success, the Obama generation, strongly supported complete civil and social equality for gays. Obama activated this generation. And once in office, Obama took some risks and proved his chops as a leader. The synergy between gay activists and the government will be studied for years to come, as it ought to be. Gay money bankrolled Obama's re-election; I am not overstating its impact.

Then the anti-bullying campaign, another half-grassroots, half-organized political crusade, focused attention on, specifically, anti-gay bullying of young people. It Gets Better videos apply to everyone, but the real target was (and is) gay youth. That so small a segment of the population could be the beneficiary of such widespread and popular grassroots encouragement is sort of amazing. It's also not an accident of history. Those who tend to support gay rights the most and those who have the resources to do something about it joined together in a concerted manner to lend legitimacy to the cause. One of them is Ken Mehlman, the former RNC chairman, who has devoted his life since coming out to persuading those within his party that equality's time has come. Republicans have come a long way in a short period of time, and Mehlman ought to get credit for it. (He doesn't want credit, but he'll get it.)

Once the barrier to gays serving in the military fell, and...nothing apocalyptic happened, and once a few states began to experiment with gay marriage, and...nothing apocalyptic happened, the only remaining arguments against same-sex unions are religious and provincial. They're small. They're associated with bigotry. No one wants to be a bigot.

And so, here we are.

[Psalm 51:17]

How Obama Decided God Was OK With Marriage Equality
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/how-obama-decided-god-was-ok-with-marriage-equality

Pastor: Jesus Was Wrong About Marriage
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/27/Pastor-Jesus-Didnt-Know-Everything
"If Jesus were alive today, he would be more inclined to say, 'you know, I didn't know it all...'" - Rev. Oliver White, Sean Hannity Show, March 27, 2013

Senate gay-marriage pool update: GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski says her views are “evolving”
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/28/senate-gay-marriage-pool-update-lisa-murkowski-says-her-views-are-evolving/

‘Marriage equality’ or ‘marriage extinction’? Next: equal rights for incest and bestiality
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/03/26/marriage-equality-or-marriage-extinction-up-next-equal-rights-for-polygamy-incest-and-bestiality/

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gay-marriage-chaos-20130331,0,7749021.column
McManus: SCOTUS-induced chaos on gay marriage?

If there is a narrow ruling against Prop. 8 and DOMA is struck down, expect a legal and political mess.
3/31/13

If the Supreme Court decides the two gay marriage cases it heard last week the way most court watchers believe it will, expect legal and political chaos.

The court seems ready to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, while ruling quite narrowly on California's Proposition 8, allowing a lower-court decision to stand. Such an outcome would make gay marriage legal in California without deciding whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

And that would allow more of what we've seen up to now: a growing number of liberal blue states moving to legalize gay marriage, and a growing number of conservative red states enacting bans.

But there will be one big difference: Gays who live in states that allow gay marriage may have an array of federal privileges unavailable to those living in states that ban such marriages. And that raises complex questions.

What happens to two gay men who marry in New York and then move to Salt Lake City? Will they still be married? If they have children, will the kids have two parents under Utah law? And will their federal benefits, such as survivors' Social Security benefits, travel with them, even though they've moved to a state where their marriage isn't valid? Will they file their federal tax returns jointly but state returns separately? And don't even think about the issue of divorce.

This kind of legal patchwork virtually guarantees that politicians in states that don't recognize gay marriage will be debating and legislating the issue for years, making for an even more confusing situation. The ensuing chaos could harm more than just gay couples; the Republican Party stands to lose too.

Gay marriage has been embraced by a substantial majority of Democrats and Democratic politicians. In blue states, the trend lines suggest that opinion among Democrats will soon be so one-sided that it will cease to be an issue.

It's different in the GOP. Most Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin, with only about a quarter in favor in a recent Pew Research Center poll. But the survey also suggests that the issue will grow as a wedge that divides the party, in part because of a big generational divergence: 76% of Republicans over 65 oppose gay marriage, while only 54% of those under 30 do.

And when the question is changed from marriage to equal rights, the wedge potential is even clearer: Republicans divide right down the middle as to whether homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, 49% to 48%, with young people again more permissive than older voters.

One leading GOP fundraiser described the conflict to me as "between the Christians and the donors" — Christian social conservatives who want the party to stand forthrightly against gay marriage, and donors who want the GOP to broaden its appeal to young people and moderates as a path toward winning the next election.

Speaking on condition he not be identified, this veteran of conservative campaigns noted that the GOP needs to keep all those groups inside its tent, which will make gay marriage a problem for any would-be presidential candidate in 2016.

All the current prospective candidates have stuck with GOP orthodoxy, making it clear that they oppose gay marriage — with the intriguing exception of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who said last week that he thinks the states should have the right to decide.

The best course for a presidential candidate, the fundraiser said, is to try to duck the issue. Paradoxically, this means a bold Supreme Court ruling recognizing a constitutional right to gay marriage might be best for the GOP in practical terms — because it would put the issue beyond the reach of legislation. If the court leaves the issue up to the states, that would give presidential candidates a states' rights place to hide — but they would still be pressed to take a clear position in caucus and primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina.

And that brings me to the third category of opinion in the Republican Party: A growing group of conservatives, including young evangelicals, who oppose gay marriage as a matter of principle, but who are willing to accept it as a civil institution for people who don't share their religious beliefs.

"You can believe that homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage can be legal," Timothy Keller, pastor of the conservative Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, told me at a conference sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

That segment of the population — culturally conservative but increasingly libertarian on matters of law — may be the one to watch as the debate over gay marriage rolls on unabated even after the court makes up its mind.

Another case, perhaps, of the public moving faster than the politicians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't the issue with this case in 2010, and last year(2012), over Prop 8, and Prop 8 ALONE in California? Now they're toning down their rhetoric to "But it should be left up to the states...forget California...". Yeah, even if it's not a broad ruling in June, nonetheless a whole new can of worms will open up.

Psalms_11:3  If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

[Psalm 51:17]

It seems like a lot of politicians' quotes in new articles I've been reading lately, they have this attitude of "I'm not a same-sex marriage supporter, BUT..." OR "I'm against same-sex marriage but for DIFFERENT reasons...". This I think is part of their Jesuitical/Hegalian Dialectical talk. Also, there have been movie plots in recent years(especially during the pre-Obama years when almost no one thought it would be legalized one day) with these themes...

http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-gop-chairs-gay-marriage-scenario-sounds-lot-154500711.html
Georgia GOP chair's gay marriage scenario sounds a lot like I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
04/01/13

Sue Everhart warns that straight people could enter sham gay marriages to gain benefits

For those of you fortunate enough not to have seen I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, here is the plot: Adam Sandler and Kevin James play two straight firefighters who, in a scheme to gain domestic partnership benefits, pretend to be gay and get married. For your consideration:

Now here is the gay-marriage scenario put forth by Sue Everhart, chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party, according to the Marietta Daily Journal:

You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride. [Marietta Daily Journal]
Is this a realistic scenario? Will straight men and women soon be flocking to preachers that look like Rob Schneider in the hopes of riding the gravy train that is gay marriage?

The problem with Everhart's logic, according to Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog, is that "if this is an argument against same-sex marriage, isn't it also an argument against opposite-sex marriage? After all, what's to stop a man and a woman who are friends from pulling the same scam?"

The federal government is already extremely serious about cracking down on marriage fraud. The Chicago Tribune reports that individuals in sham marriages for immigration purposes face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Comparable cases involving gay marriage are difficult to find because, as the Huffington Post's Luke Johnson points out, "There isn't any evidence of widespread fraud following the adoption of gay marriage in nine states and the District of Columbia."

Philip Bump at The Atlantic says that if you are going to ban a practice for fear of fraud, you would have to move beyond marriage:

You know who else commits fraud in the state of Georgia? People who take out mortgages. Last year, a report suggested that the state was the nation's sixth-worst for fraudulent home loans. Since mortgages are such an enticement for abuse, then, it's only fair that the state ban borrowing to buy a home. [The Atlantic]

[Psalm 51:17]

Monday, April 1, 2013 at 10:30AM
Today's Show: THE BRADY BUNCH & THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

Chris discusses a recent article in which Susan Olsen, star of the 70's show "The Brady Bunch," pays homage to her TV dad -- the late Robert Reed -- celebrating the fact that he was a homosexual, and blaming his death on Christians who preach against the gay lifestyle.  Her testimony is the latest in Hollywood's ongoing war against the Christian faith.  Olsen goes out of her way to say that those who oppose homosexuality are "exactly like the primitive practice of people who killed babies" who were born with birth defects.  But is it really "Christianity" that causes the premature death of homosexuals?  Robert Reed's death reveals the truth about the gay philosophy, and exposes the true culprits in what is devastating the homosexual community.

http://www.noiseofthunder.com/storage/NOTR_BRADY.BUNCH_04.01.13.mp3

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-us-sen-mark-kirk-supporting-gay-marriage-161815047.html
GOP Sen. Kirk Announces Support for Gay Marriage
4/2/13

GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois said Tuesday he supports gay marriage, becoming the second sitting Republican senator to make such an announcement in recent weeks.

Kirk, who previously opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, said in a post on his blog that "same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage."

"Our time on this Earth is limited, I know that better than most," said Kirk, who suffered a stroke in January 2012. "Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle."

Kirk went through months of rehabilitation before returning to work in Washington this January. He said in his blog post that when he went back to the Senate he promised himself he would return "with an open mind and greater respect for others."

Kirk is Illinois' ranking Republican lawmaker. His announcement comes less than three weeks after Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Republican in the Senate to say he supported gay marriage and one week after the U.S. Supreme Court held two days of oral arguments on the subject.

It also comes as the Illinois Legislature is giving final consideration to a measure that would make Illinois the 10th state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage.

The Illinois Senate voted in February to lift a state ban on same-sex marriage. The legislation also was approved by a House committee, but has yet to be called for a floor vote. Speaker of the House Michael Madigan said recently he believes supporters are a dozen votes short of what they need for the bill to pass.

Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat, has said he would sign the measure.

Kirk's announcement could give political cover to Republicans in the Illinois House who are considering a yes vote but are fearful of a backlash — or a primary challenge — from social conservatives.

The news was greeted with enthusiasm by supporters.

"We continue to see the momentum behind marriage equality grow, especially among Republicans." said Rick Garcia, Director of the Equal Marriage Illinois Project and Policy Director for The Civil Rights Agenda, Illinois' largest gay rights advocacy organization. "The momentum is stunning and we welcome it."

Kirk served five terms in Congress representing Chicago's northern suburbs before he won the 2010 race for President Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat.

He previously voted to end the policy barring gays from openly serving in the military, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and is a lead co-sponsor of a bill to ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He also supported Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady after Brady announced his support for same-sex marriage earlier this year, drawing the ire of his party's social conservative wing. When some members of the state central committee attempted to oust Brady, Kirk said Brady had his full support.

[Kilika]

HIV-positive Magic Johnson is so proud of his gay son! 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/magic-johnson-son-e-j-gay-parents-love-155040567--nba.html

"Cookie and I love E.J. and support him in every way," Magic Johnson told TMZ in a statement. "We're very proud of him."

[Psalm 51:17]

HIV-positive Magic Johnson is so proud of his gay son! 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/magic-johnson-son-e-j-gay-parents-love-155040567--nba.html

Yeah, it was 22 years ago when MJ announced he was HIV positive, it was HUGE news - now fast-forward to this present day, it just seems like anything, even stuff like this, is acceptable among the mainstream. It's as if modern-day parents like MJ just don't know how to train up their children. And this is also the kind of stuff I see on the modern-day tv show/movie.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php?action=post;topic=7736.60;num_replies=68
GAY PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TAKES OFFENSIVE TURN
By Cliff Kincaid
 April 2, 2013
 NewsWithViews.com

Offending the moral sensibilities of millions of Americans, Time Magazine is featuring cover stories showing two white homosexual couples kissing. The Right Scoop blog ran a “censored version of the offensive covers.”
Link: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/04/02/kincaid-gay-propaganda-campaign-takes-offensive-turn/?current=1

John Aravosis, the homosexual activist who runs Americablog.com, said this is part of a propaganda campaign to normalize homosexuality. He said, “The kiss has been quite a powerful political weapon in the gay arsenal for a while now. And checking our archives, it’s rather amazing how important the ‘gay kiss’ has been to our political struggle over the years.”

The purpose is to desensitize people to homosexuality and increase acceptance of the lifestyle.

Media bias is also evident in the influence of the media-funded National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA).

The NLGJA says coverage of the homosexual marriage debate before the Supreme Court was “balanced—supportive even,” and that program hosts “felt compelled to disagree with them [opponents of homosexual marriage] on air.”

We noted the media’s failure to cover the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C.

On the Time cover photos, the NLGJA said, “The black-and-white photos are an interesting, provocative selection. The magazine didn’t opt for family photos of smiling, nonthreatening gay and lesbian families and their kids: It went for the part of same-sex marriage that may be most off-putting to mainstream cultures. The kissing, the sexuality. It’s a bold choice for a mainstream publication to make.”

Regarding the story itself, the NLGJA said it “was largely positive, save for a colorful sentence about AIDS and bathhouses.”

The offensive phrase was that the deadly disease AIDS was “burning outward from the bathhouses…” These are places where anonymous gay sex is common. Homosexuals are determined to keep coverage of the health hazards of homosexuality out of mainstream media.

On his Reliable Sources program, supposedly devoted to media criticism, host Howard Kurtz featured two homosexual rights supporters, John Aravosis and Jennifer Rubin, who writes “The Right Turn” blog for The Washington Post.

Nevertheless, he noted the bias in the coverage, explaining that “Liberal commentators are thrilled that the marriage debate is swinging their way, at least in the court of public opinion, while many conservative pundits were muted or surprisingly supportive.” He cited Bill O’Reilly of Fox News declaring that “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” and dismissing opponents as Bible-thumpers.

The latter was apparently a reference to the Christian teaching that marriage involves a man and a woman and that homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible because it is unnatural and sinful.

Rush Limbaugh countered: “So how many of you who watch Fox are Bible thumpers? Do you think there are any Bible thumpers, quote/unquote, that watch Fox? Because last night you were sort of marginalized on [O’Reilly’s show] The Factor as not having a compelling argument and just being a bunch of Bible thumpers.”

Limbaugh also noted the influence of the “Gay Mafia,” which he described as “the activist homosexual lobby” contributing “big bucks” to the Democratic Party, and leading the campaign for homosexual marriage.

Interestingly, it was Time Magazine which ran a 2008 story, “The Gay Mafia That’s Redefining Liberal Politics.” One of the rich members of the group was identified as Timothy Gill of Denver, the founder of Quark, Inc., a computer software company and a tech multimillionaire, who says he has singlehandedly “invested more than $220 million” in the cause of homosexual rights through his Gill Foundation.

An earlier 2007 Time story, “The Gay Mogul Changing U.S. Politics,” estimated his fortune at $425 million. Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli compared Gill to George Soros: “What you have are extremely wealthy individuals who aren’t personally interested in running for anything but have this tremendous passion. Like George Soros, Tim Gill is actually changing the political landscape”

But Soros, too, has a big hand in changing the landscape for the benefit of the homosexuals. In 2009 he financed the “New Beginning Initiative” to encourage the Obama Administration to make “policy changes” to benefit the homosexual movement.

The Gill Foundation is also behind “OutGiving,” which claims to have “provided unique opportunities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and allied donors to gather in a private setting to engage in conversation with each other and with respected LGBT and allied leaders about ways to advance equality through philanthropy.” OutGiving says it has “inspired hundreds of donors to give more strategically and more generously to improve the lives of LGBT [Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people across the country and around the world.”

The biannual OutGiving Conference is said to be “geared toward individuals whose annual philanthropy exceeds $25,000 and who are interested in increasing the effectiveness of their giving in support of the LGBT movement.”

They are meeting in Chicago, Illinois this week. However, the event is by “invitation-only,” and “private,” and “no media are permitted.”

Don’t look for the homosexuals in the media to blow their cover.

Media bias is also evident in the fact that 13 of the top 15 newspapers in the country have editorialized their support for homosexual marriage. The pro-homosexual American Foundation for Equal Rights identified these publications as:

• USA Today
• The New York Times
• Los Angeles Times
• San Jose Mercury News
• The Washington Post
• Daily News
• Chicago Tribune
• Chicago Sun-Times
• The Dallas Morning News
• Houston Chronicle
• The Philadelphia Inquirer
• The Arizona Republic
• The Denver Post[/size]

The homosexual movement senses victory is just around the corner. And Limbaugh himself says federal approval of homosexual marriage may be “inevitable.” But referring to the group’s March 26 March for Marriage, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage said, “Forget the media hype and confusion, our numbers today show that the American people are strongly pro-marriage and pro-marriage Americans aren’t going anywhere. This is the beginning of the fight to protect marriage. Our opponents know this, which is why they are hoping the Supreme Court will cut short a debate they know they will ultimately lose if the political process and democracy are allowed to run their course. Those who believe that marriage is the unique and special union of one man and one woman are on the right side of history.”

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gay-couples-employers-could-face-legal-maze-supreme-094406233--politics.html
4/3/13
Gay couples, employers could face legal maze if Supreme Court strikes down DOMA

If, as many legal experts predict, the Defense of Marriage Act is struck down by the Supreme Court, advocates behind the decadeslong movement for gay rights will have won a major victory. But the decision could also create a dense legal maze for gay and lesbian married couples, one that would surely lead to more lawsuits that could make their way back to the Supreme Court.

And striking down DOMA would not just affect same-sex couples, but their employers. Basically, said Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at UCLA School of Law, the result could be a “mess.”

The problem resides in conflicting state gay marriage laws and how the federal government would interpret them. Last week, the court heard arguments about whether Section 3 of DOMA—which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages—is unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally the court’s swing vote, seemed inclined to strike down the statute on the grounds that it interferes with states' rights to define marriage, raising hopes among gay rights groups that thousands of married same-sex couples will be able to access the federal benefits of marriage for the first time.

If DOMA is struck down, then same-sex couples residing in states that allow gay marriage will suddenly be included in the more than 1,100 federal laws that give benefits to married couples. Gay couples, for instance, could file jointly on their tax returns, apply for Social Security survivor benefits if their spouse dies, and take up to 12 weeks off to care for a sick family member without fear of losing their job under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

But what about a gay couple that gets married in New York and then moves back to North Carolina, or any other of the 38 states that have explicitly banned gay marriage?

At first glance, it appears they would have no access to these rights, and that their marriage would not be recognized either by their state or the federal government. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked attorney Roberta Kaplan, who was arguing against DOMA, this very question. Alito asked whether a New York gay couple who moved to North Carolina could qualify for the same federal estate tax breaks that heterosexual married couples enjoy if one spouse dies.

"Our position is only with respect to the nine states ... that recognize these marriages," Kaplan responded.

In Kaplan's version of events, the Supreme Court could strike down DOMA and essentially create two different worlds for gay married couples in the country. In a handful of states, gay couples would enjoy all the benefits of heterosexual couples, but if they moved to the majority of the states in the union, their marriage would effectively disappear—for both federal and state purposes.

But Zasloff doesn’t think that will pass muster. He predicts same-sex couples would sue the government, arguing that this policy violates their constitutional right to travel. (In the past, the Supreme Court has struck down states’ waiting periods for new residents to enroll in welfare programs, holding that they violated the right of interstate travel.) Same-sex couples could also make a broader legal argument that the federal government should define “marriage” based on where a couple got married, not where they currently live.

The Supreme Court could sidestep this inevitable legal battle by explicitly noting whether the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages if the couples are no longer living in states that issued their license. But some experts say don’t count on it.

Andrew Koppelman, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, says he would be "astonished" if the Supreme Court clarified the issue in its opinion. Zasloff agrees, noting that Kennedy, who will most likely write the DOMA opinion if it is struck down, is known for his sphinxlike unwillingness to expound upon the details in his opinions.

That would leave broad discretion to the Obama administration to define the issue administratively, Koppelman says. The White House could direct federal agencies like the IRS to accept marriages based on where a couple got married, not where they live.

Should the Supreme Court justices spell out that same-sex marriages are not valid in states that don't recognize them, the legal differences between married same-sex couples in different parts of the country would be stark.

Under that scenario, Todd Solomon, a partner at the Chicago law firm McDermott Will & Emery, who focuses on employee benefits issues, predicts a gay-couple migration to the nine states (and the District of Columbia) that allow the unions, since Social Security, tax and other federal benefits are at stake.

Cathy Stamm, a consultant at Mercer, a human resources firm, said employers are also anxious to see what the Supreme Court will decide. She's advising firms to comb through their benefit plans that involve employees' spouses—anything from health insurance to pension plans to employee discounts—to figure out whether state or federal law will require them to cover same-sex spouses if DOMA is struck down. Solomon predicts that employees in same-sex marriages may sue employers if they deny certain benefits to their spouses if this happens.

Employers might face a particularly tricky situation if they’re based in an area that allows same-sex marriage but their employees commute in from a state that does not. So, for example, would an employee with a same-sex spouse be eligible to take 12 weeks of family leave if he or she lives in Virginia but works in D.C.? Even though Virginia doesn't allow same-sex marriage, most labor laws are based on where the place of work is, so there's no simple answer. Stamm says employers hope the Supreme Court will help them avoid this legal thicket.

"There's a lot of confusion about what employers need to do," Stamm said. "I think employers would welcome some guidance from the court when they provide their ruling."

[Psalm 51:17]

I know this is nothing but a dog and pony show, but nonetheless Ben Carson is a self-professing "conservative Christian" who is playing his part misleading his followers(ie-some think somehow he'll bring hope to America if he runs for Prez in 2016), and it's one of these "be ye angry and sin not..." moments for me.

http://news.yahoo.com/ben-carson-apologizes-homosexuality-223414682--abc-news-politics.html
4/5/13
Ben Carson Apologizes For Comment on Homosexuality

Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon and recent star of the conservative movement, has apologized for comments on homosexuality that had Johns Hopkins students clamoring for his ouster as their commencement speaker.

"Although I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, there are much less offensive ways to make that point," Carson wrote in a letter to the Hopkins community. "I hope all will look at a lifetime of service over some poorly chosen words."

During a March 26 TV interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity, Carson compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia in explaining his view that "marriage" can only describe a heterosexual relationship.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman, it's a well established fundamental pillar of society," Carson told Hannity. "And no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition, so it's not something that's against gays, it's agianst anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society-it has significant ramifications."

**nothing wrong with what he said here.

That comment had roiled some students, ahead of his scheduled commencement address at Hopkins' medical-school graduation ceremony.

"We retain the highest respect for Dr. Carson's achievements and value his right to publicly voice political views. Nevertheless, we feel that these expressed values are incongruous with the values of Johns Hopkins and deeply offensive to a large proportion our student body," the Health and Human Rights Student Group wrote on its Facebook page, asking the school to "select an alternative speaker."

Today, Dean of medical Faculty Paul Rothman called the comments "offensive" in an open letter and announced that faculty would meet with graduating students to discuss the matter. Carson, meanwhile, apologized.

"Controversial social issues are debated in the media on a regular basis, and yet it is rare that leaders of an academic medical center will join that type of public debate," Rothman wrote. "However, we recognize that tension now exists in our community because hurtful, offensive language was used by our colleague, Dr. Ben Carson, when conveying a personal opinion. Dr. Carson's comments are inconsistent with the culture of our institution."

*Again, what was so "offensive" over what he said?

Carson had previously told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that his words were "completely taken out of context and completely misunderstood," while also offering the semi-apology, "If anyone was offended, I apologize to you" and noting that, as a Christian, he loves all people, including gays.

Today, he offered a fuller version in a letter to the Hopkins community:

Dear Colleagues, Friends and Associates:

As you know, I have been in the national news quite a bit recently and my 36 year association with Johns Hopkins has unfortunately dragged our institution into the spotlight as well. I am sorry for any embarrassment this has caused. But what really saddens me is that my poorly chosen words caused pain for some members of our community and for that I offer a most sincere and heartfelt apology. Hurting others is diametrically opposed to who I am and what I believe. There are many lessons to be learned when venturing into the political world and this is one I will not forget. Although I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, there are much less offensive ways to make that point. I hope all will look at a lifetime of service over some poorly chosen words.

Sincerely yours,

Benjamin S Carson Sr MD

Carson has been a rising conservative star. At the National Prayer Breakfast in March, with President Obama seated just feet away from him, Carson delivered a speech in which he criticized political correctness and called for private health savings accounts to address health-care spending. His address prompted The Wall Street Journal to publish an editorial entitled,  "Ben Carson for President," and the neurosurgeon delivered a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference later last month.

**If Carson is some "conservative Christian", then what in the world is he doing attending an OBAMA function? Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers...

[Psalm 51:17]

On a side note - Ben Carson's "raised up during his childhood" is yet another "rags to riches" story we've heard 100s of times with other celebrities, politicians, etc. It's just the same 'ole "grew up poor, struggled to make friends and struggled in school, but overcame all odds to be where he is" generic storyline.

Pt being that sometimes you wonder if these people are really are who they are. For example, they said the same storyline about Bill Clinton when he first ran for President, but they forgot to mention how he was a member of the Order of DeMolay(Freemasons for young boys).

Anyhow - these high profile people that are labeled as "Christians" make me "be ye angry and sin not..." b/c they are not setting an example at all for their followers, but somehow Churchianity continues to look up to these people. If Carson ends up losing his job and everything else he has over what he said, then so be it, b/c if he's a born again believer, he's already been given the promise and hope of eternal life.

Mark 10:28  Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
Mar 10:29  And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Mar 10:30  But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Mar 10:31  But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-gay-marriage-0408-20130408,0,7995309.story
4/8/13
Illinois GOP state lawmaker backs same-sex marriage bill

State Rep. Ed Sullivan Jr. of Mundelein said Sunday he will support a bill to allow gay marriage in Illinois, becoming the second House Republican to do so and first among leadership.

Sullivan, who is chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, said his decision to back same-sex marriage represented a personal and family evolution on the issue. Previously an opponent of civil unions, Sullivan told the Tribune that his mother-in-law, who lives in the southwest suburbs, has been in a same-sex relationship.

"The first reaction from people might be, 'Well he might be voting for that just because of his mother-in-law,'" Sullivan said. "The reality is, because my mother-in-law is gay, I have more of an understanding and familiarity with same-sex couples."

more

[Psalm 51:17]

 



Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2  And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

[Psalm 51:17]

Montana votes to strike down law criminalizing 'deviate' gay sex
4/11/13
Montana lawmakers have voted to get rid of a law that criminalizes gay sex and the governor is expected to sign it -- which would leave 11 states where such statutes remain on the books.

The Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional a decade ago, rendering them unenforceable, but gay rights advocates say they support their removal due to the stigmatizing language.

With a 65-34 vote on Wednesday, the bill was shuttled off to Gov. Steve Bullock, who is likely to sign it, his spokeswoman, Judy Beck, told NBC News. Montana's Supreme Court struck down the law in 1997, but a block of Republican lawmakers had stymied efforts to repeal it, the Billings Gazette reported.

“It’s not about encouraging a lifestyle,” Rep. Bryce Bennett, D-Missoula, an openly gay Montana lawmaker, was quoted as saying Tuesday by the newspaper. “It’s simply about respecting privacy between two adults. … It’s just as simple as saying that all Montanans deserve dignity and respect.”

The old law made “deviate sexual conduct,” or sexual relations between people of the same sex, a crime. Those convicted of it faced a prison term of up to ten years and/or a maximum $50,000 fine.

The Supreme Court in 2003 ruled that a Texas state law criminalizing gay sex was unconstitutional, thereby striking down some 14 active anti-sodomy laws on the books in other states and Puerto Rico.

"As a matter of law, sodomy laws, as they apply to same-sex couples and in some states different sex couples, were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in our 2003 lawsuit Lawrence v. Texas," Susam Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal, said in a statement.

Nonetheless, Montana's repeal "goes a long way in building a supportive environment for LGBT people and their families," she added, noting that the ongoing presence elsewhere of "these unconstitutional laws in state penal codes implicitly stigmatizes gay people and puts them and many others at risk of unlawful prosecutions. It is time every state cleans up its books and cleans up its act."

Eleven states still have laws on their books outlawing oral and anal sex between same-sex couples, while another nine have statutes outlawing oral and anal sex for everyone, according to Lambda Legal.

The 2003 Supreme Court case has been cited by pro-gay marriage supporters in arguments before the high court on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed. The court is expected to rule in those cases in June.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17705370-montana-votes-to-strike-down-law-criminalizing-deviate-gay-sex?lite

[Psalm 51:17]

Delaware: The Next Blue State to Move on Marriage Equality
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/11/delaware_the_next_blue_state_to_move_on_marriage_equality.html
4/11/13

Last year, as more states legalized gay marriage legislatively or at the polls, those of us armed with maps had a question: What about Delaware? The First State, of which I am a son, is a moderate place that's swung Democratic as the GOP has swung to the right. Starting with the 2008 Obama-Biden wave, it's also been completely controlled by Democrats. The current state House has a 26-15 Democratic majority; the current state Senate is split 13-8 for the Democrats. Gov. Jack Markell has supported gay marriage for years. And I already mentioned Joe Biden.

Well, the gay marriage push starts today. This afternoon, most of the state's leadership—governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state Senate president, speaker of the House—will gather in Wilmington to announce legislation that would legalize gay marriage. All they need to do is alter Delaware's statute on marriage, which prohibits unions between "people of the same gender." (Delaware never got onboard with the "traditional marriage amendment" party.)

Sen. Chris Coons has been working the phones and meeting with legislators and "community leaders" who could take sides when the bill comes up. "Some of them don't support marriage equality and have strong reservations for a variety of reasons," he said. "Because of their district, because of their background, their faith tradition. You know, many them are reconsidering after hearing from their constituents, or after seeing the movement nationally toward marriage equality. Some have a personal experience with a family member, a neighbor, a colleague who speaks to them personally." If a vote came after a "broad, robust debate followed by a strong vote in both chambers," Coons didn't see any chance of a backslide, or of primary challenges and election losses leading to a reversal. "We'll be a state whose legal committment to marriage is strong."

[Kilika]

You know, many them are reconsidering after hearing from their constituents,

Yeah, whatever! 

Since when do politicians actually listen to their constituents?

Politicians don't listen, they TELL their constituents how it's going to be, and the public just takes it, like a sheep to the slaughter.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.nomblog.com/34377/
NEW Marriage ADA Video: A Warning for Parents and Educators!
April 12, 2013 at 11:25 am

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Third grade classrooms having pretend same-sex weddings… textbooks featuring pictures of cross-dressing carpenters… children being taught that there are "six genders."

"If same-sex marriage is passed in your state, your children—your grandchildren—will be exposed to the same kind of instruction."

That's what educator and marriage supporter Phil Lees says in our latest Marriage ADA interview.

He worked for years in the public education system in Ontario, Canada, and saw first-hand—only one year after same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005—18 school boards in Ontario instituting school curricula that affirmed and promoted LGBT "values," including same-sex marriage.

Phil's story needs to be spread far and wide. In every place where NOM has fought the legalization of same-sex marriage here in the United States, our opponents have falsely promised that it will not affect the innocence of children.

But in every place marriage has been redefined, we have seen a powerful movement begin to use the schools to teach children about same-sex unions, intentionally confusing them about the unique and complimentary role of mothers and fathers.

Supporter, as this educator points out, one of the problems is that people of faith sometimes withdraw from the system and cede control to activists bent on promoting values that we know to be harmful to children and to society.

[Psalm 51:17]

When I was reading this article over the weekend, the Lord brought to mind this passage...

Ezekiel 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Eze 16:50  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Back in 2004 when I watched a lot of the Presidential election coverage, CNN's Paul Zahn went to interview some South Carolina SBC pastor(in her coverage of evangelicals and politics). I wasn't saved then, but just something looked very wrong with what these "evangelicals" were doing - just to sum it up, it was as if they were lifted up with too much pride and self-righteousness, including the SC pastor she interviewed(ie-he acted like he and evangelicals were better than everyone just b/c they voted Republican on the sole basis of protecting the unborn and marriage).

Anyhow, when you look at the Ezekiel 16:49-50 passage closely - yes, Sodom talks a lot about the widespread homosexuality across the land, but in this particular passage when they talk about pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness...doesn't it kind of remind you of these self-professing modern-day "evangelicals" who are indirectly playing their part in worsening this agenda?

And then this article over teen beauty pageant contestant who's openly gay...in a state that PRIDES itself in embracing socially conservative issues...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307686/Lesbian-19-Mexican-father-African-American-mother-wins-South-Carolina-beauty-pageant.html
Lesbian beauty queen, 19, with Mexican father and African-American mother competes for Miss South Carolina crown

Annalouisa Valenica has won the title in her local town of Lyman
She came out in the 9th grade and has been in a relationship for 3 years
South Carolina does not recognize same-sex marriage or hate-crime protections for gay people

A teenage lesbian with a Mexican father and an African-American mother is hoping to win the Miss Carolina crown when she competes at the contest this summer.

Analouisa Valencia, 19, is hoping to rattle the pageant stereotypes by becoming the first lesbian in her conservative home state to take the crown, before heading to the national competition.

She has already scored the title in her home town of Lyman and believes it was a victory for equality. Now she wants to take the issues center stage in the state competition in July.

'I want to show the judges who I really am,' she told CNN. 'I want to show them how passionate I am about my platform, how passionate I am for being an advocate for equality.'

more

[Psalm 51:17]

Unsurprisingly, it all roots back to the love of money...

4/19/13
Which Industries Stand to Benefit From Same-Sex Marriage?

The LGBT community has serious buying power -- nearly $800 billion worth in this country alone. That kind of capital is a motivating factor that might just turn the bigotry tide.

While gay marriage still has half of the Supreme Court’s robes in a bunch and Catholic bishops hunkered in total prayer and meat-fasting mode, more civilized parts of the world like, oh say, Uruguay have found themselves on the side of civil rights -- and laughing all the way to the bank.

Until recently, same-sex marriage proponents have largely focused the upsides of legalization -- aside from keeping the Constitution constitutional -- in terms of the personal, social, and cultural benefits of taking part in the institution. For those in society unmoved by the touchy-feely appeals, here’s a motivating factor that might just turn the bigotry tide: money.

The LGBT community has serious buying power -- some nearly $800 billion worth, in fact, in this country alone. When legalized marriage is open to this demographic, whole industries and institutions get to dip into its collective cookie jar. Minyanville is here to tell you which ones will benefit the most.

Wedding Tourism

Some of the most obvious and immediate beneficiaries of the same-sex walk down the aisle are the myriad enterprises that play a part -- both directly and indirectly -- in the wedding industry. Within the first year of enacting the Marriage Equality Act in June 2011, New York City’s economy got a $259 million boost -- well on its way to surpassing the $400 million the State’s Senate Independent Democratic Conference had projected over the first three years combined.

Through spending in area hotels, restaurants, catering halls, bridal boutiques, beauty salons and suppliers, caterers, etc. and the resulting tax revenue, gay and lesbian marriage made enough money to pay the city’s parks and recreation budget for the year (or to buy each resident three Big Gulps). 2013 is expected to raise $300,000 just in marriage licenses and ceremony fees.

Let’s not forget large, public companies like hotel chains, rental car agencies, jewelers, and big box wedding registry retailers that wouldn’t have otherwise been patronized.

Minivan and SUV Manufacturers

Love. Marriage. Baby carriage. Minivan.

In researching the purchasing decisions of people in their child-rearing years (ages 28-45), TrueCar.com foundgay wedding gay marriage same sex marriage business that the family roadster is still the auto of choice. “Generation X buyers... chose cars that were comfortable and convenient for their lifestyle," said analyst Kristen Andersson. “They chose larger, more luxurious cars to take their families on vacations or kids to play soccer with ample room to store equipment and luggage.”

Of the top ten models purchased by this demographic, only two -- the BMW M3 Sedan and Chevrolet (NYSE:GM) Aveo -- didn’t fall into the minivan or SUV category. The Volkswagen (PINK:VLKAY) Routan, Nissan Quest and Armada, Honda (NYSE:HMC) Odyssey, Toyota (NYSE:TM) Land Cruiser and Sienna, Volvo XC90, and Infiniti QX56, respectively, comprised the rest of the list.

In addition to higher profit margins for automakers, bigger cars generally mean less fuel efficiency and costlier insurance premiums -- a boon to both the Exxons and Geicos of the economy. 

Speaking of insurance, Progressive (NYSE:PGR) et al.’s same-sex marriage payday isn’t limited to its auto arm. The life and term insurance business largely relies on partnering up -- unless the majority of policyholders are eccentrics who are leaving everything to the local research institute on captive parrot breeding. 

Real Estate and Home Improvement

Another fairly predictable corollary to settling down is, literally, settling down. According to 2012 data from the National Association of Realtors, 65% of homeowners are married couples. Down the aisle to over the threshold has been a societal procession for generations and there’s no evidence to suggest those in same-sex relationships would deviate from that custom.

Moreover, gay and lesbian homeowners invest more in maintaining and improving their properties. In 2009, during the height of the economic downturn, a national consumer survey found the demographic spent twice as much as its straight neighbors on renovations, reporting higher rates of purchase at Home Depot (NYSE:HD) Lowe’s (NYSE:LOW), Sears (NASDAQ:SHLD), Best Buy (NYSE:BBY), and Costco (NASDAQ:COST).

“Gay men and lesbians have a reputation of being major home improvement shoppers and this survey reaffirms that," said Matt Tumminello, president of marketing firm Target 10. “Renovating and refurbishing homes is in many ways a part of gay culture. Even in bad economic times, they are not stopping.”

Read more: http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/Which-Industries-Stand-to-Benefit-From/4/19/2013/id/49290?page=full#ixzz2Qvsj1bh9

[Psalm 51:17]

Heb 13:5  Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Prov_8:11  For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

Prov_20:15  There is gold, and a multitude of rubies: but the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel.

Job_28:18  No mention shall be made of coral, or of pearls: for the price of wisdom is above rubies.

Also - other professions will likely profit from this too - Accountants, depending on the situations, they're going to have more to work with. Ie-if the USSC strikes down DOMA and merely rules SSM is a states right, then Accountants will have their hands full, let's say, in Oklahoma if they do taxes for a SSM couple relocating from California b/c they employment moved them(they can file MFJ federal, but b/c OK has anti-SSM laws, for state they have to file MFS or S each). This is going to create much more work and confusion. OR if the USSC rules to make SSM a constitutional right altogether, they're still going to have more to work with as they get more SSM clients asking for more MFJ benefits in the tax codes.

Attorneys - for similar reasons presented as Accountants.

AND...last but not least, 501c3 churches, why? B/c having a 501c3 means they get other tax benefits for having weddings, funerals, and other similar functions at their churches. Especially with our economy being in the worst shape since the Great Depression, you can bet these churches will be desperate. Ultimately, I don't think the government will force, per se, these churches to perform SSMs.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/del-nj-ill-next-gay-marriage-battlegrounds-193018906.html;_ylt=AwrNUbKX93lRd30Axt7QtDMD
Del., NJ, Ill. next gay marriage battlegrounds
4/25/13

Rhode Island is set to become the 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry following a key vote in the state's General Assembly this week. Gay marriage supporters are shifting their focus to other states, including:

—Delaware. The state's House approved a bill Tuesday legalizing same-sex marriage on a 23-18 vote. The bill now moves to the Senate. It has the support of Democratic Gov. Jack Markell. Delaware approved same-sex civil unions last year.

—New Jersey. The Democratic-led legislature is expected to attempt to override Republican Gov. Chris Christie's veto of gay marriage legislation a year ago. But there aren't enough Democrats to guarantee an override, and Christie has suggested putting the question before voters.

—Oregon. Gay marriage advocates hope to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the 2014 ballot that would reverse a ban on gay marriage passed by voters in 2004. The effort has the support of Gov. John Kitzhaber.

—Minnesota. Hundreds of gay marriage supporters gathered at the state Capitol this month to urge lawmakers to vote for gay marriage. Legislation has cleared committees in both the House and Senate.

—Illinois. The state's Senate approved gay marriage legislation on Valentine's Day. Supporters in the House say they're still a few votes short but hope a vote is held before the General Assembly adjourns this spring. Gov. Pat Quinn supports the bill.

[Psalm 51:17]

It's not so much that this is part of the dog and pony show - but ultimately, Churchianity is mostly to blame for this as well, b/c even though they have the outward appearance of supporting pro-life and pro-family, the big message that comes out of them is how "We need to bring back this robust economy to this once blessed nation!".

It was no different when Al Gore said in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid!".

New conservative lobbying push for gay marriage
4/27/13
http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-lobbying-push-gay-marriage-050802280.html

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A national group of prominent GOP donors that supports gay marriage is pouring new money into lobbying efforts to get Republican lawmakers to vote to make it legal.

American Unity PAC was formed last year to lend financial support to Republicans who bucked the party's longstanding opposition to gay marriage. Its founders are launching a new lobbying organization, American Unity Fund, and already have spent more than $250,000 in Minnesota, where the Legislature could vote on the issue as early as next week.

The group has spent $500,000 on lobbying since last month, including efforts in Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia and Utah.

Billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer launched American Unity PAC. The lobbying effort is the next phase as the push for gay marriage spreads to more states, spokesman Jeff Cook-McCormac told The Associated Press.

"What you have is this network of influential Republicans who really want to see the party embrace the freedom to marry, and believe it's not only the right thing for the country but also good politics," Cook-McCormac said.

In Minnesota, the money has gone to state groups that are lobbying Republican lawmakers and for polling on gay marriage in a handful of suburban districts held by Republicans. So far, only one Minnesota Republican lawmaker has committed to voting to legalize gay marriage: Sen. Branden Petersen, of Andover.

"I think there will be some more. There are legislators out there that are struggling with this," said Carl Kuhl, a former political aide to former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman and Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Kuhl's public affairs firm is contracted by Minnesotans United, the lead lobby group for gay marriage in Minnesota and main recipient of American Unity's Minnesota spending.

Gay marriage's fate in Minnesota may rest with the House, where support is seen as shakier than in the Senate. A handful of votes from Republicans could put it over the top. Nearly two dozen House Republicans represent more socially moderate suburbs and might be candidates to vote yes.

House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said he has encouraged advocates of the marriage bill to round up Republican votes, if nothing else than to send a message to Minnesota residents that it's not a partisan proposition. But that will be politically risky; the main opposition group to same-sex marriage, Minnesota for Marriage, has said it will seek consequences for Republicans who stray on gay marriage.

Part of American Unity PAC's original mission was to spend money on behalf of Republican gay marriage supporters. Many GOP lawmakers have faced primary challenges funded in part by anti-gay marriage groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, which argue that the lawmakers had betrayed the party's core principles.

Since forming the lobby group last month, American Unity also spent money to win over Republican lawmakers in Rhode Island, where last week all five Republicans in the state Senate jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon. Rhode Island is on track to legalize gay marriage by next week, which would make it the 11th U.S. state where gay marriage is legal.

There are also plans to lobby federal lawmakers on gay rights issues.

"We intend to work on this effort until every American citizen is treated equally under the law," Cook-McCormac said. Other wealthy, traditionally Republican donors giving money to the group include Seth Klarman, David Herro and Cliff Asness.

Though only one current GOP officeholder in Minnesota is on record supporting gay marriage, a handful of prominent Republicans have spoken out in favor of it. They include former state auditor Pat Anderson and Brian McClung, who was spokesman for former Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Prominent Republican donors including former politician Wheelock Whitney and businesswoman Marilyn Carlson Nelson have also lent support and donated money.

Since it first formed to campaign against last fall's gay marriage ban and then shifted to pushing for its legalization at the Capitol, Minnesotans United has been building Republican alliances, hiring multiple lobbyists with Republican ties.

[Psalm 51:17]

Rhode Island legalizes same-sex marriage: Which states are next?

One state could take the plunge as early as next week
5/2/13
http://theweek.com/article/index/243674/rhode-island-legalizes-same-sex-marriage-which-states-will-be-next

Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) on Thursday night will sign into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, making that state the tenth in the nation to do so. [UPDATE: Chafee signed the bill Thursday on the steps of the State House.]

Chafee has already said he will sign the measure, which cleared a procedural vote in the state's General Assembly earlier on Thursday. In addition to Rhode Island and nine other states, the District of Columbia also allows same-sex marriages.

Yet Rhode Island's achievement could soon be old hat. A handful of other states are on track to legalize gay marriage — including one that could do so within weeks.

DELAWARE
The Delaware State Senate will vote next week on a marriage equality bill. A Senate subcommittee voted yesterday to send the bill to the full Senate, where Democrats hold a 13-8 advantage, making final passage likely.

The House passed the bill last week, and Gov. Jack Markell (D) has already said he'll sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

NEW JERSEY
Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed a gay marriage bill last February, but the state legislature has indicated it will try to override his veto. Supporters would need to entice a few more votes in the Senate and about a dozen more in the Assembly for that to happen.

At the same time, Christie has suggested putting the issue on a ballot for voters to decide. A recent Quinnipiac poll found voters there overwhelmingly in support of same-sex marriage, by a 64-30 percent margin.

MINNESOTA
Minnesotans last year defeated a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage. The state may now go one step further by legalizing gay marriage, but through the legislature this time.

Minnesota's House and Senate are expected to begin discussing marriage equality measures shortly, with Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL) pressing lawmakers to pass the a legalization bill this year.

ILLINOIS
The Illinois Senate passed a bill in February that would legalize gay marriage, but the House has yet to vote on it, as supporters try to scratch together enough votes to secure passage. The bill has the backing of Gov. Pat Quinn (D), who said last month he was "really optimistic we're within striking distance" of legalization.

OREGON
While a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is still on the books, supporters of marriage equality are aiming to undo that. The state's leading gay rights group, Basic Right Oregon, is collecting signatures to place marriage equality on the ballot in 2014.

Polls have shown voters generally in favor of reversing the ban, which was passed in 2004. The New York Times' polling guru Nate Silver estimated recently that 54 percent of voters there would have backed a theoretical marriage equality ballot initiative last year.

[Psalm 51:17]

Read the news article - the Dallas mayor actually DOES support same-sex marriage. IOW, his "I don't want to discuss it BUT I support it" is nothing but Dialectic babble.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20130501-dallas-mayor-says-gay-marriage-resolution-is-a-poor-use-of-city-councils-time.ece
Dallas mayor says gay-marriage resolution is a poor use of City Council’s time
5/1/13

A proposed resolution supporting gay marriage is a political distraction and a misuse of the Dallas City Council’s time, Mayor Mike Rawlings said Wednesday.

Council member Scott Griggs is behind the resolution, which calls for equal marital rights for same-sex couples. He got the signatures needed from fellow council members to place the matter on an upcoming agenda. And he says he has the votes to pass it.

“It’s timely, and it’s relevant,” Griggs said. “The LGBT community is not only a big part of Oak Cliff, but a big part of Dallas.” Griggs, who represents parts of Oak Cliff, is running for election on May 11 to a different council seat, a result of the council’s redrawing of district boundaries. His opponent in the race is a fellow incumbent, Delia Jasso.

Rawlings emphasized that he is “an unequivocal supporter of marriage equality.” But he said the City Council shouldn’t spend its time debating political matters over which it has no authority.

“To do this for what seem to be political purposes is not good judgment,” he said.

Rawlings said he also doesn’t want the City Council “talking about late-term abortions, or gun control, or Gitmo,” an informal name for the U.S. military detention center at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

As the mayor observed, the debate over same-sex marriage is not one that will be resolved at the municipal level. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases dealing with the issue and has an opportunity, through its rulings, to determine the law of the land.

One case pending before the high court is a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That 1996 statute says marriage, for purposes of federal law, is defined solely as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

The other case involves a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that similarly limits marriage to unions between one man and one woman.

In response to the mayor’s criticism, Griggs said simply that he was pleased to hear Rawlings supports marriage rights for same-sex couples. He said he looks forward to passage of his resolution.

That resolution also calls for a ban on workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation — a policy that the city of Dallas has had in place since 2002.

[Psalm 51:17]

Again, it all comes down to the love of money...

Meet the billionaire hedge fund manager quietly shaping the GOP gay marriage debate
5/3/13
A battle within the Republican Party over same-sex marriage is unfolding on two fronts, in public, and behind the scenes. In the latter case, one of the most influential players is a billionaire hedge fund manager largely unknown to those who don’t work in finance or mix with political mega-donors.

That man is Paul E. Singer, who over the years has used his wealth to spur Republicans to support gay marriage laws. Now, Singer is expanding his reach with the creation of an advocacy group which aims to spend millions influencing the legislative debate over same-sex marriage across the country.

Singer, the 68-year-old founder of Elliott Management Corporation, is not a newcomer to the political battle over gay rights. He coaxed Republican state senators in New York to back a same-sex marriage law in 2011, offering financial cover against backlash stemming from their votes, helping raise six figures for each of them.

The public side of the intra-party debate over gay marriage was visible when Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) declared support for same-sex marriage, setting off a renewed debate about the issue in the GOP. And when the Republican National Committee recently reaffirmed its opposition to gay marriage, it also was plain to see.

Behind the scenes, donors are influencing the debate more quietly. On this second front, it is all about money and organization. And for Singer, it’s about being there financially for Republicans who decide to back same-sex marriage.

Singer declined to be interviewed for this story, but agreed to answer questions via e-mail. He sees donors and politicians, he said, as “complementary forces,” and is signaling to elected officials they will have backup if they decide to support same-sex marriage.

“We are heartened to see many politicians in both parties moving in the right direction on this,” he wrote. “Our job is to let them know they have plenty of like-minded friends, activists and party leaders who will stand with them.”

For Singer, there is a personal connection to the issue. His son is gay, and got married in Massachusetts, something Singer mentioned in a 2010 speech at a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Singer started American Unity PAC in 2012, infusing the operation with a big early donation. The super PAC spent over $2 million on congressional races last cycle, according to data compiled by the Center For Responsive Politics. The group had limited success, backing more losing candidates that winning ones.

Even so, the creation of the PAC offered a new financial vessel for donors looking to protect Republicans friendly to gay rights, serving as a countermeasure to anti-gay marriage groups like the National Organization For Marriage.

Several months ago, Singer laid the groundwork for American Unity Fund, an 501(c)(4) nonprofit affiliated with the super PAC. The effort was officially announced last week. It’s an effort to branch into advocacy and lobbying, and to delve further into legislative battles at the state level.

American Unity Fund has already raised $2 million and plans to raise millions more. It recently found success in Rhode Island, which on Thursday became the 10th state to legalize gay marriage. The group convinced state senate Republicans to support gay marriage there and is also trying to win over Republican lawmakers in Minnesota, where there is a legislative effort to legalize same-sex marriage.

There’s a “sentiment among leading center-right donors that it is important to make a compelling and honest case with why the freedom to marry is consistent with conservative values,” said American Unity Fund spokesman Jeff Cook-McCormac.

Singer has also donated big money over the years to other Republican causes and candidates. He believes supporting gay marriage is wholly consistent with conservatism. He argues for individual freedom when he makes his case. “I believe marriage equality is critical to the future of individual liberty and the strength of the American family, and the Republican Party should stand for both,” said Singer.

But there are many conservatives who aren’t convinced. One need look no further than Portman’s announcement that he supports gay marriage. The news prompted some social conservatives to reaffirm their commitment to marriage as strictly between one man and one woman.

And even as Americans have moved sharply toward favoring same-sex marriage during the last decade, most Republicans remain opposed, polling shows. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News survey, even as the percentage of Republicans who say gay marriage should not be legal has dropped since 2004, most still oppose it.

For Singer, it’s a project that advances in increments. He said he believes that evidence in the states where gay marriage is legal should help convince more conservatives to support it.

“Ultimately, this fight is about basic equality and individual liberty — both conservative principles,” Singer concluded in his e-mail. “But for those who remain unconvinced, state-by-state evidence that marriage equality does no harm and actually strengthens families and the institution of marriage should put doubts to rest and pave the way for more conservatives to join this growing movement.”

[Psalm 51:17]

This is getting rather complex, and rather subtlely...apparently, if the USSC rules that Prop 8 has no "standing"(which the majority of justices apparently believe at bare minimum), then either scenerios can happen...1) The CA government can choose to legalize it(or not), 2) It will be punted back to the lower courts there to let them decide, or 3) They can let Prop 8 stand, but the citizens can decide whether or not they want to put it on the ballot to legalize it at the 2014 midterm elections(apparently, support for SSM there has risen to a majority since 2008, when they voted for Prop .

Either way, the USSC is going to let a whole new can of worms open up on this issue, and it's going to be one big mess(ie-the Hegelian Dialectic b/w both sides is gonna get very nasty).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-13/gay-marriage-letdown-looms-as-high-court-weighs-narrow-ruling.html
5/13/13
Gay-Marriage Letdown Looms as High Court Weighs Narrow Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court fight over California’s Proposition 8, viewed by gay-rights advocates as a historic opportunity to establish same-sex marriage nationwide, may not even settle the issue in the state.

The justices, who probably will rule next month, signaled during the March 26 argument that they might sidestep the underlying constitutional questions and decide that the defenders of the 2008 gay-marriage ban lacked “standing,” or legal eligibility, to bring the case. That could leave the status of gay marriage in California in doubt, spawn new litigation and perhaps even prompt another ballot initiative.

A standing ruling might mean “a quick death for Prop 8,” said Vikram Amar, a constitutional law professor at the University of California Davis School of Law. “But it’s also quite possible -- maybe more likely -- that it will take some time before we know which couples, beyond the two couples who sued, would be able to get their licenses.”

The issue will loom large as the court nears its decision. It’s the first time the justices have considered whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. While a ruling limited to standing might mean months or even years of uncertainty, a declaration that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional could take effect in as little as 25 days, letting thousands of Californians marry this year.

More than 18,000 same-sex couples got marriage licenses in California in the five months between the state Supreme Court’s ruling that gay marriages were legal and the passage of Proposition 8, which effectively overturned that decision.

First Time
Ten states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriages, with Delaware slated to join the list on July 1. Companies such as Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Morgan Stanley (MS) have urged the Supreme Court to back gay-marriage rights as has the Obama administration.

The standing issue stems from the 2008 decision by Jerry Brown, then California’s attorney general, not to defend Proposition 8 when two same-sex couples sued to overturn it. The initiative’s official sponsors, led by former state Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, took the lead in defending the measure.

The sponsors’ role took on new legal significance after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and barred state officials from enforcing it. The question then became whether the sponsors had the legal right to represent the state’s interests in an appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unclear Path
Supreme Court precedent doesn’t provide a clear answer. Although generally it is the state’s prerogative to decide whether to appeal, and what arguments to make, the high court has let lawmakers represent a state in some contexts. In 1997, the court said it had “grave doubts” that sponsors of an Arizona ballot initiative could file an appeal.

During the March 26 argument, several members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether the Proposition 8 sponsors had standing. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potential swing vote, called the issue “substantial.”

Should the high court rule that the sponsors lacked power to appeal, lawyers for the couples challenging Proposition 8 say the effect would be to legalize gay marriage across the state. They reason that the 9th Circuit ruling would be erased and Walker’s order would be reinstated.

“A win on standing would be a victory that would establish marriage equality and wipe out Prop 8,” said Theodore Boutrous, a Los Angeles lawyer with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. “We would be very happy with that.”

Gay-marriage opponents counter that Walker’s statewide order would have to be set aside as well.

Default Judgment
“We would certainly hope that the Supreme Court would vacate everything that had happened since the beginning of the case,” said Austin Nimocks, a lawyer on the team defending Proposition 8. “If there’s no standing, then there never was an actual case, meaning that there were no legitimate rulings.”

At most, Nimocks says, the two same-sex couples would be entitled to a so-called default judgment, letting them marry without affecting the rest of the state.

At the core of the dispute are questions about the constitutional power of federal judges. Some constitutional law professors, including Marty Lederman of Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, say Walker lacked power to issue a statewide ruling.

“District court judges generally do not have the power to issue injunctions that protect persons other than the parties before them,” Lederman wrote in a post on Scotusblog, which tracks the court.

In Doubt
Even so, it’s not clear anyone would be in position to contest the reach of Walker’s order, says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine School of Law. He says neither the sponsors of Proposition 8 nor any county official would likely have the legal right to do so.

“The defendants are not going to object to it, and I don’t see who else can do so,” Chemerinsky said in an e-mail.

The justices themselves probably won’t address the scope of Walker’s order, an issue that isn’t directly before them. The Supreme Court could instead return the case to the lower courts, letting the two sides spar there.

California officials might add more wrinkles. The state thus far has enforced Proposition 8, refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses even while opposing the ballot initiative in court. Brown, now the governor, could change that approach after a Supreme Court ruling and direct county clerks begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Gay-Marriage Support
Should any of those clerks balk, the issue could become further muddled. One county clerk, Chuck Storey of Imperial County along the Mexican border, has already said in court papers that he isn’t sure whether he is bound by Walker’s ruling.

No matter how the Supreme Court rules, same-sex marriage in California may be inevitable. Californians back gay nuptials by almost 2-1, according to a Field Poll taken in February. Should the high court ruling uphold Proposition 8, or leave its status uncertain, gay-marriage supporters could put the issue back on the ballot in 2014.

Boutrous, the lawyer challenging Proposition 8, says he hopes a Supreme Court ruling on standing would prompt opponents of gay marriage to concede defeat.

“I’m hopeful that the Proposition 8 proponents will at some point come to their senses and say, ‘Enough is enough,’” Boutrous said. “It’s time for everyone to move onto something else and allow people to marry the person they love in California without more litigation.”

[Psalm 51:17]

Even though Michigan is technically a "blue" state, at the same time supposedly, it's also a state with a lot of social conservatives. It's also the home of that "Our Daily Bread" ministries(which is very popular in Churchianity circles). Personally, when I got saved in 2006, I started reading their devotionals in 2006 - it is stone-cold Churchianity stuff. They use the NEW King James Version as their primary bible, which is even worse than using the NIV.

Anyhow - thought about this when I saw this article - we will see if/when/how soon these "red" Churchianity states will break.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130514/POLITICS02/305140459/1022/rss10
5/14/13
Poll: Majority in Michigan now support gay marriage

Detroit — A majority of Michiganians supports gay marriage and broadening rights for homosexuals, a dramatic reversal from just a few years ago, according to a statewide poll released Tuesday to The Detroit News and WDIV-TV Channel 4.

Support for same-sex marriage has increased to 56.8 percent, up 12.5 percentage points from last year — movement fueled largely by shifting opinions from Republicans and independents, the poll of 600 registered voters by the Glengariff Group Inc. showed.

The support is in contrast to 2004, when Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

That year, Glengariff found 24 percent of state voters supported gay and lesbian marriages. Now, 54 percent would repeal the ban and replace it with an amendment to allow same-sex marriages, the poll found.

"I don't think I've ever seen a policy question move as quickly as this one," said Richard Czuba, president of Glengariff, a Chicago-based firm that has polled about Michigan's attitudes on gay marriage and civil unions regularly since 2004.

The poll comes as partisans await a U.S. Supreme Court decision on two cases related to gay marriage and debate is roiling within the Republican Party over its opposition to the unions. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton on Tuesday signed legislation making his state the 12th to recognize same-sex marriages and the third alone this month.

The poll, which was conducted from May 8 to Friday, found at least 90 percent of Michigan voters favor some legal protections for homosexuals, while at least 65 percent favor changes to laws allowing for civil unions, inheritance rights, adoption, domestic benefits and hate crime protections. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Czuba said the change is propelled by acceptance — more residents know gays and lesbians — and belies the perception that rank-and-file Republicans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage.

Support for it increased among voters who identify themselves as Republicans to 36.5 percent this year from 20 percent last year. It rose to 50.6 percent from 36 percent among independents and to 75 percent from 71 percent among Democrats over the same period, the poll found.

A majority of younger voters favor same-sex marriage. Regionally, support is strongest in southeast Michigan, the poll found. It was weakest in western Michigan, 42 percent, and mid-Michigan, 38 percent.

Weekly churchgoers were the biggest opponents — with 58 percent against the marriages, the poll found.

"Back in 2004, this was very much a wedge issue for Republicans," Czuba said. "The shoe is on the other foot. This is still a values issue, but it's one of equality rather than 'stop this.' "

Not so, said Michigan Republican National Committeeman David Agema.

"The vast majority of people understand the family unit is the basic basis of our society," Agema said.

"If (gay marriage) were to pass nationwide, I fear what kids would be taught in school. If it's a government-sanctioned lifestyle, hate crimes would begin for those speaking out against it, and we would lose our freedom of speech. Then they would come to churches and take tax-exempt status away from churches that didn't support the lifestyle. That's what happened in other countries."

Agema has become a lightning rod after sharing an article on Facebook recently that called homosexuality a "filthy lifestyle." Several Republicans called for his resignation and argued he hurt the party as it strives to become more inclusive and attract younger voters.

Agema isn't backing down. Republicans shouldn't either, said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, a Republican primary hopeful for U.S. Senate last year. Standing firm against gay marriage could attract blacks, Hispanics and union members to the party, Glenn said.

Despite the poll's findings, party faithful decide primary elections and remain "intensely opposed" to gay marriage, said Leon Drolet, a former Republican state representative who is gay.

"Someone has to lose an election for being too anti-gay before politicians start getting nervous," said Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance.

The stance may win elections in safe districts now, but it's a loser in the long run, he said.

"It's sucking energy out of the Republican Party and sucking the youth out of the Republican Party," he said.

Gay rights legislation still faces challenges in the Republican-controlled state Legislature. Efforts to include gays in the state's civil rights law, the Elliott Larsen Act, have failed for years.

Similar bills should be introduced soon, while a campaign to drum up support to repeal the constitutional ban on gay marriage is planned in anticipation of a 2016 ballot proposal, said Emily Dievendorf, managing director for Equality Michigan, a Detroit-based bipartisan gay and lesbian group seeking to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The momentum that is building nationally is really shining a bright light on how far behind Michigan is," she said. "It's embarrassing to all of us."

[Psalm 51:17]

Gallup Poll: Majority Now Say Gay Sex, Unwed Births, Are Morally OK
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gallup-poll-majority-now-say-gay-sex-unwed-births-are-morally-ok-96306/
5/21/13

A Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans now believe that sexual relations between two men or two women, and unmarried women having a baby, are morally acceptable.

In the new survey, 59 percent of American adults answered that gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable, a 19 percentage point increase since 2001 when only 40 percent said it was morally acceptable.

Sixty percent of respondents said that having a baby outside of marriage was morally acceptable, a 15 percentage point increase since 2002 when only 45 percent said it was morally acceptable.

Of the 20 issues which Gallup asked about their moral acceptability, same-sex sexual relations and unwed pregnancies saw the greatest increases. They were also the only issues which changed from a minority to a majority of the country finding them morally acceptable over the past decade.

The other large increases in moral acceptability were: sex between an unmarried man and woman went from 53 to 63 percent, divorce went from 59 to 63 percent, and medical research using stem cells from human embryos went from 52 to 60 percent.

The only large decline in moral acceptability was for medical testing on animals, which went from 65 to 56 percent.

The moral acceptability of abortion remained the same as it was in 2001, at 42 percent. There was little change in the moral acceptability of pornography (31 percent), gambling (64 percent), buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur (59 percent), and the death penalty (62 percent).

At six percent, married men and women having an affair had the lowest number of those saying it was morally acceptable.

The May 2-7 poll of 1,535 adults has a plus or minus three percentage point margin of error.