New York Times Champions Gay Men's Surrogate Child Purchase For the 'Post Marriage-Equality World'

Newsbusters.org:

In an utterly typical flourish, the front of the "Thursday Styles" section of The new York Times featured two gay men and a tot over the headline "And Surrogacy Makes 3: Surrogate baby-making, through restricted in many states, has been growing among gay men."

Times reporter Anemona Hartocollis told the utterly unopposed story of New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman and his partner David Sigal with their daughter, Silvia Hoylman-Sigal. In New York, Sen. Hoylman is trying to make it easier for gays to use surrogates for their "fundamentally conservative embrace of family values." Their baby story "carries with it an extra frisson of the illicit that seems to them more than a little archaic and unfair in the post marriage-equality world."

Hoylman and Sigal had to travel to California to create a surrogate baby, since commercial surrogacy contracts have been illegal in New York since the "notorious Baby M case of the 1980s." Mary Beth Whitehead kept her child after the pregnancy. Now they're trying to repeal that law:

Surrogate baby-making has long been a path taken by the affluent and celebrities, partly because it takes good legal advice and money to accomplish. But in recent years, it has been growing among gay men, who in a fundamentally conservative embrace of family values, see having children and building a family as the logical next step after getting married.

“Not to be cliché, but you know how the phrase goes — first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby and the baby carriage,” said Allison Steinberg, a spokeswoman for the Empire State Pride Agenda, which has endorsed the bill. 

The bill’s supporters argue that it makes no sense for New York, which has a large number of fertility clinics, not to mention a flourishing gay community, not to be able to offer commercial surrogacy to those who want it. And they say that making surrogacy more widely available could reduce the exorbitant costs, easily as much as $100,000 per baby. 

In Mr. Hoylman and Mr. Sigal’s case, neither of their parents expected them to have children. “Now they think he’s a family man,” Mr. Sigal said, grinning at his husband.
“It’s a funny phrase,” Mr. Hoylman said. “This is what it takes for people to relate to you.” 

Mr. Hoylman says views on his Facebook page spike when he puts up pictures of their daughter, Silvia, now 3, but not when he puts up photographs of him and his husband without her. 

The bill’s co-sponsors could hardly offer a more perfect vision of the surrogacy constituency. Mr. Hoylman, who took his Senate office last year, represents the heart of gay New York, in the Village, Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen. The Assembly sponsor, Amy Paulin, who actually originated the bill, is from wealthy Scarsdale. 

The Times can't even be liberal enough to balance this out with someone complaining from outside the One Percent that surrogacy's only for the wealthy. Surrogacy subsidies can't be far off. The positive buzz continued, about how surrogate mothers prefer growing babies for the gay men:

Agencies prefer to contract with surrogates who are married with children, because they have a proven ability to have a healthy baby and are less likely to have second thoughts about giving up the child. 

Conversely, gay couples are popular among surrogates. “Most of my surrogates want same-sex couples,” said Darlene Pinkerton, the owner of A Perfect Match, the agency in San Diego that Mr. Hoylman used. Women unable to become pregnant often go through feelings of jealousy and loss, she said. But with gay men, that is not part of the dynamic, so “the experience is really positive for the surrogate.” 

Or as her husband, Tom, a third-party reproductive lawyer, put it, “Imagine instead of just having one husband doting on you, you have three guys now sending you flowers.”

RELATED: Of Bakers and Beliefs: Kirsten Powers’ Faith-Work Disconnect

New Virginia Attorney General: I’m Asking the Courts to Strike Down Our State’s Ban on Gay Marriage

Some more liberal fascism for ya:

Noteworthy, although not because it’s novel. This is basically the same move Holder made three years ago in declaring that he and Obama would take the position in court that Section 3 of DOMA required “heightened scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause, which is a fancy way of saying that they thought the law was unconstitutional and should be struck down. It’s unusual for an AG to refuse to defend a statute in his jurisdiction, but not unheard of. Because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, a prosecutor’s good-faith belief that a statute conflicts with it would/should lead him to oppose it. Ken Cuccinelli, in fact, refused to defend one of Bob McDonnell’s education reforms because he believed it violated the Virginia Constitution.

What makes this novel is the political position that Mark Herring’s in. He won the election for AG in November by less than a thousand votes. He was sworn in less than two weeks ago. He did note on the trail, as virtually all Democrats these days do and must, that he now supports gay marriage (he mentioned it as recently as five days before the election), but he’d voted against the practice as a legislator years before. 

There was every reason to think that, when presented with a searingly divisive issue after an excruciatingly close election, he’d want to lie low. Nope. The state will still enforce the ban on SSM until a court tells it otherwise, he says — that’s his concession to SSM opponents and jittery Democrats who fear a backlash from elected officials summarily overturning state law — but he’s going to do whatever he can to get a court to make that determination. Makes me wonder when that next step will be taken, where an AG who’s pro-SSM is elected in a state that’s trending the same way but still has a traditional marriage law on the books and he decides that he’s simply not going to enforce the law at all. If some Democrats don’t get the result they want in court fast enough, they might resort to measures like that.

Virginia Republicans are unhappy:

“By running for the office, Mark Herring asked for the challenge of defending Virginia’s constitution and all it contains,” Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Pat Mullins said in a statement.

“If Mark Herring doesn’t want to defend this case, he should resign, and let the General Assembly appoint someone who will. Mark Herring owes the people of Virginia no less,” he added…

“This lawlessness is an insult to the voters of Virginia who approved the marriage amendment by a large majority,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The ‘left’ is becoming a law unto itself.”

Schwarzenegger and his state AG at the time, Jerry Brown, refused to defend Prop 8 even though it had been passed by popular referendum because they too thought the statute was unconstitutional. Lefty law prof Erwin Chemerinsky, while opposed to Prop 8, wrote at the time that he found it “disturbing” that a majority of California voters could be deprived of a state attorney to defend a law they enacted simply because of a difference of opinion with their leaders over the law’s constitutionality. He proposed having states pass laws to enable the governor to appoint a special attorney to defend a statute in cases where the AG feels, in good faith, that he can’t. A solution for Virginia?

One other note here: The case in which the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage, which has been cited in many a brief ever since as a reason to strike down gay-marriage bans as well, originated in Virginia. Herring is, of course, aware of that. Maybe that’s why he moved so quickly on this — if Virginia’s law ends up being the one the Supremes use for the landmark “gay marriage is now legal” decision that everyone knows is coming, the political symbolism would make Herring a star and set him up to succeed McAuliffe as governor.

RELATED: Gay Marriages Confront Catholic School Rules

Pastor Robert Jeffress Tells Bill O’Reilly How Obama Is Laying the Groundwork for the Anti-Christ

Mediaite.com:

Pastor Robert Jeffress sat down with Bill O’Reilly Monday night to argue that President Obama is laying the groundwork for the rise of the Anti-Christ because he is “conditioning” people to rely on government support. He said there will be a “future world dictator before Christ returns who’s going to usurp people’s personal rights, and “change God’s laws… without any opposition” so “people will have been conditioned long before the Antichrist comes to accept government overreach, and that’s what you’re seeing with President Obama.”

He said, “I’m not saying President Obama is the Anti-Christ. In fact, I’m sure he’s not, because the Anti-Christ is going to have higher poll numbers.”

He argued that in addition to Obamacare creating a culture of dependency, Obama is sowing the seeds for the Anti-Christ with the contraception mandate and “abortion-inducing drugs,” as well as the “redefinition of marriage.” He argued that gay marriage is simply a “counterfeit” of real marriage, and “whenever you say marriage is whatever you want it to be… people say why bother getting married at all.”

RELATED:  Exemptions from the ‘contraception mandate’ threaten religious liberty

Politiks As Usual: In The News 1/19/14

Hoboken Mayor: 'It's True' Christie Administration Withheld Sandy Funds

Philadelphia School Cheating Probe Widens; More Than 100 Educators Targeted

The Need Of The Hour: A Governor Who Will Defy Judiciary On Marriage

Obama on Pot: 'I Don't Think It Is More Dangerous Than Alcohol' 
 
The Perverted Science of Global Warming Gets Dirty(er) 

Target Hacking Mastermind Identified as 17-year-old Russian

What Recovery? Sears And J.C. Penney Are DYING

Dan Savage Wanted Sarah Palin to Choke on Her Christmas Pastry

Vapid ABC Thrills Over 'Revealing,' 'Elegant' Michelle Obama and Her Extended 'Vacay' 

Conservatives Adopt Progressive Priorities

Feminist Lena Dunham Defends Vogue Photoshopping Her Glamor Shots

Wendy Davis Stretches the Truth

Unions Won’t Support Bill to Keep Sex Predators Out of Classrooms

Andrew Cuomo: Pro-life People Have “No Place in the State of New York”

Hopefully, this smug speech comes back to bite him if he ever decides to run for POTUS, much less re-election as governor of New York:

Forty-eight percent of Americans and all priests and nuns are no longer welcome in the Empire State, according to its governor. Delivering a monologue on Republicans with all the hyperbole of an MSNBC anchor and none of the charm, Cuomo offered this:

You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.

… You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.”

He at least uses the liberal pejoratives for those who are pro-2nd Amendment and oppose gay marriage. “Right to life” he uses as if it’s offensive on its face. As Life News notes, he leans heavily on the President Barack tactic to simply declare everyone who disagrees with your positions in the slightest “extreme,” even if many of those people are your constituents. But how extreme is the pro-life position, even in a blue state like New York? Unlike, say, gay marriage, the polling on abortion restrictions, particularly second and third trimesters, regularly and overwhelmingly favors the more conservative position.

Cuomo spent much of 2013 trying to pass a Reproductive Health Act that moved the opposite direction of abortion legislation in states like Texas and North Carolina. He took from the Dr. Gosnell’s House of Horrors story that, hey, who shouldn’t be able to perform abortions, huh? The legislation, which was stuck into a broader Women’s Equality Act, stalled in the Senate because of its abortion provisions and under strong fire from the state’s bishops, who apparently are also no longer welcome in New York.

One 2013 poll, commissioned by the Chiaroscuro Foundation found, just as in the rest of the country, though many consider themselves pro-choice, they are very open to restrictions to abortion in the second and third trimesters and think abortions are already accessible enough in their state. A few of the questions lean on the prejudicial, but the bent of the electorate is clear:

The findings conclude that an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers support sensible restrictions on abortions, with eighty percent (80%) opposing unlimited abortion through the ninth month of pregnancy and seventy-five percent (75%) opposing changes in current law so that someone other than a doctor can perform an abortion.”

RELATED:  No Place for Dissent in Andrew Cuomo's New York

Supreme Court Halts "Gay Marriage" in Utah Pending Appeal

WaPo.com:

The Supreme Court halted same-sex marriages in Utah on Monday, returning to center stage the question of whether there is a constitutional right to marry that states may not withhold from gays and lesbians.

The court’s two-sentence order stayed a decision from a federal judge in Salt Lake City that had cleared the way for same-sex marriages. About 1,000 such weddings were performed in the 17 days that followed — unions that the state’s attorney general said are now in “legal limbo.”

Monday’s order, with no recorded dissents, gave no reasoning for granting the stay and no clues about how the justices may ultimately decide the issue.

It was only six months ago that the court gave major victories to gay rights advocates in its first full consideration of same-sex marriage, including requiring the federal government to recognize such unions performed in states where they are legal.

But a flurry of legal challenges filed around the country since then could mean that the court will be called upon sooner rather than later to decide the fundamental question it sidestepped: whether state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Monday’s order indicated that the justices want lower courts to weigh in on the legal issue before giving what might seem to be even implied approval of the federal judge’s decision that the bans cannot stand. Without emergency action, the justices would not consider the issue in the court’s current term, which ends in June.

RELATED:  Supreme Court puts stay on same-sex marriage in Utah

Politiks As Usual: In The News 12/22/13

Cracker Barrel Reverses Decision, Will Resume Selling Duck Dynasty Products

As Utah Gay Couples Celebrate Marriages, All Eyes On US Appeals Court

Doubling the Minimum Wage Actually Hurts Employees

Katie Couric's Oprah Try Fails, Kathy Griffin Back on CNN for New Year's Bash

Homo-fascists Are Overplaying Their Hand With Duck Dynasty

Obama Warns South Sudan

Paul Ryan Doubles Down on Cutting Veteran Pensions

Who Are You To Judge Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson?

Atheist-Funded Group Behind Attack on Koch Foundation Donation to Catholic U.

Research Shows TV Shows Underrating Violence

Douglas County Sheriff Will No Longer Cooperate with A&E in Filming 'Duck Dynasty'

1st Gay President Barack Obama Sends Homosexual Athletes To Sochi Olympic Games In Opposition of Russian Law Against “Gay Propaganda.”

Doing the bidding of the Godless, white, liberal mob that runs his social agenda:

Liberal journalists never mounted Olympics protests about free speech in the U.S.S.R., but they’re very excited about President Obama opposing the Russian law against “gay propaganda.” Obama is skipping the ceremonies and sending a lesbian tennis legend in his place.

Under the headline “Obama jabs at Putin’s anti-gay stance,” USA Today topped its front page Wednesday with a blatant Obama-loving editorial from sports columnist Christine Brennan. It began: “President Obama's selection of Billie Jean King for the official U.S. delegation to the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games is a stroke of genius.” It was a "perfect call," Brennan claimed.  See her Olympic free-speech hypocrisy below.

Brennan kept praising: 

What better way to show the nation's disgust for President Vladimir Putin's anti-gay propaganda law than for Obama to send an American cultural icon and sports legend who also happens to be openly gay?...

In a recent conversation with USA TODAY Sports' Kelly Whiteside, King talked about the general hesitancy U.S. athletes expressed regarding the law.

"Sometimes I think we need a John Carlos moment," she said on Sept. 25, referring to the U.S. track star who was expelled from the 1968 Mexico City Olympics along with American sprinter Tommie Smith for protesting racial discrimination. [They held up their black-gloved hands in a "black power" salute on the medal stand.]

"I think there's watershed moments, benchmarks. I would hope the majority of the athletes would speak out. It's a great platform."

Brennan added: "Think of the millions of Russian citizens who are gay, or have a gay family member or friend, living in a nation where discrimination based on sexual orientation is not only tolerated, but promoted.And the U.S. president sends one of the world's most recognizable faces of equality and inclusion to attend the Opening Ceremony in such a visible role?It's the perfect call for an extraordinary international situation."

Speaking of "equality and inclusion," it's a good time to recall that just last year, Peter Vidmar, a 1984 Olympic gold medalist, had to resign as chef de mission for the 2012 U.S. Olympic team because as a Mormon, he donated $2,000 for Proposition 8 in California supporting traditional marriage and appeared at two Prop 8 rallies.

That pressure from the gay lobby wasn't Putinesque? At the time, Brennan just reported it like removing him from the Olympic effort was necessary, since he was becoming an activist after all: "In U.S. Olympic circles, there was concern that Vidmar wasn't just expressing his personal opinions on a controversial issue, but that he had moved into an activist role on an issue involving civil rights."

RELATED: New Mexico Supreme Court says state must recognize gay marriages as a matter of equal protection

Politiks As Usual: In The News 12/15/13

Kerry Comments Add to Mystery About Rogue CIA Agent Missing in Iran

Hillary Clinton, Too Cozy With Banks?

Has Hollywood Seen The Light? Biblical Films Abound!

Ron Christie to MSNBC Guest Claiming Tea Party Is 'Racial': 'I Will Not Sit Here and Allow You to Say That'

Arapahoe High Gunman: Republicans Are the Party of 'Let 'em Die'

3 Reasons Why Our Teenagers Can't Find Jobs

Honeymoon Cut Short: Court Overturns Australia’s First Same-Sex Marriage Law

Is Conservatism Being Marginalized On Capitol Hill - by Conservatives?
 
O, Come Let MSNBC Adore Lord Obama
 
Ex-Gay Group Files Sexual Orientation Discrimination Complaint with Department of Justice
 
Pope Francis Addresses ‘Ultraconservatives’ (and Limbaugh?) Calling Him a Marxist
 
Mike Huckabee Talks 2016, But Is Anyone Listening?

Federal Judge Declares Utah Polygamy Law Unconstitutional

It's what conservatives have long warned all those morally-bankrupt, liberal heathens out there who wish to destroy traditional marriage--the slippery slope aspect that is. And now, a judge with common sense comes out and supports "marriage equality" in it's truest form:

A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC’s reality series "Sister Wives." The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

Waddoups’ ruling attacks the parts of Utah’s law making cohabitation illegal. In the introduction, Waddoups says the phrase "or cohabits with another person" is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments.

Waddoups later writes that while there is no "fundamental right" to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to "religious cohabitation." In the 1800s — when the mainstream LDS Churh still practiced polygamy — "religious cohabitation" in Utah could have actually resulted in "multiple purportedly legal marriages."

Today, however, simply living together doesn’t amount to being "married," Waddoups writes. 

"The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it," Waddoups later writes. 

Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words "marry" and "purports to marry," meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense — when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licences.

The Browns could not immediately be reached Friday night, but issued a statement through their lawyer calling the decision humbling and historic.

"While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs," Brown wrote. "Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs."

RELATED:  The Slippery Slope to Polygamy and Incest

Politiks As Usual: In The News 11/17/13

More World News from ABC

Teens' 'Knockout Game' A Growing Danger With Deadly Results

Atheism: Poor Odds, Bad Science and the 'Law of Non Contradictions'

Perfect. Seattle Elects A Socialist To City Council

Failed Left-Wing Policies Sinking Obama's Presidency

The Cult of Outrage

Andrew Sullivan Slams MSNBC: 'Bunch of Hypocrites and Phonies on That Propaganda Network'

Physician Criticizes FDA Crusade Against Trans Fats 

Transgender Bathroom Laws An Assault On Freedom, Expert Says

Pa. Pastor Facing Church Trial Over Gay Marriage

Marketplace Changes Have Made ENDA Superfluous

Don Lemon Takes On Black Writer For ‘Why I Hate Being a Black Man’ Column

Toronto Mayor Refuses to Step Down: 'I'm Not an Addict'

Godless Gay Rights Movement Threatens Businesses Across The Country

MRC.org:

Even though gay marriage advocates often say those marriages won’t hurt others, business owners have been finding out that isn’t true. Companies, especially wedding-related ones, from several states have been sued and harassed for holding onto religious convictions.

The concept of "gay rights" has trampled religious liberty, but the network news media haven’t noticed. In fact, when Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins was on CBS in June, Bob Schieffer said he was “unaware” of such cases. In a year of coverage about discrimination cases involving gays, there was only casual mention of an attack on businesses out of 31 stories on the network news broadcasts (Nov. 1, 2012 through Oct. 31, 2013). And that was a casual comment about Chick-Fil-A. Even after additional searches for coverage of specific lawsuits, the broadcast networks have said almost nothing in recent years about the impact of gay rights and gay marriage on businesses.

The situation for businesses and Christian business owners could worsen if Congress passes the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The legislation "would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity," according to The New York Times. House Speaker John Boehner announced his opposition to the bill on Nov. 4, and the bill is not expected to be able to pass the House, according to The Washington Post.

Several states including New Mexico, Oregon, Illinois, Washington and Iowa each have their own state’s “Human Rights Act” or “Civil Rights Act” which prohibit discrimination by public businesses based on sexual orientation. 

The wedding industry been hardest hit by the tension between religious liberty and gay rights, in spite of a recent Rasmussen poll showing that 85% of Americans think business owners should be allowed to deny services for gay weddings if they have religious objections. Other companies like Chick-Fil-A and Barilla Pasta have been targeted as well for making statements that angered gay activists.

In 2006, Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer in New Mexico, declined a request to photograph a “commitment ceremony” and was subsequently taken to court. She defended her religious rights but was ruled against by the New Mexico Supreme Court in August 2013. She was ordered to pay more than $6,000 in legal fees. In a concurring opinion on the case, one justice even stated that having to violate your religious beliefs when they conflict with social issues like gay marriage “is the price of citizenship.” The photographer and her attorneys are considering taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ACLU and the Colorado attorney general are suing the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Colorado bakery, according to The Blaze. The owner is facing up to a year in jail time for refusing to bake a gay couple a wedding cake in 2012. The ACLU echoed the sentiment of the New Mexico court justice saying, “But someone's personal religious beliefs don't justify breaking the law by discriminating against others in the public sphere."

ABC News.com reported that a Washington florist was sued in April by the state’s attorney general on behalf of a same-sex couple who were declined flowers for their wedding ceremony. The couple who sued the florist were regular customers of the florist for 10 years, but when the florist was asked to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding, she told CBN, that she “had to take a stand.”

The florist is now counter-suing with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Washington Attorney General stated, “As an individual, she is free to hold religious beliefs but as a business owner, she may not violate our state’s laws against discrimination — no matter what she personally believes.”

Networks Barely Mention Harm to Businesses

ABC, CBS and NBC news programs have barely addressed the stories of business owners accused of anti-gay discrimination, or the ensuing harassment and lawsuits.

Apart from a few local news stories, the bulk of these reports have come from conservative and religious blogs and far left and gay websites. The liberal websites predictably attacked businesses for being “homophobic.” The Huffington Post even has “anti-gay companies list,” which includes chains like Chic-Fil-A, Domino’s Pizza, and Exxon but also charities like the Salvation Army. 

RELATED:  Political fallout on Illinois gay marriage bill for Democrats, Republicans

Court Forces "Gay Marriage" On New Jersey

Doesn't matter what the people think in Obama's Godless America:

Same-sex marriages can begin within days in New Jersey after the state's highest court ruled unanimously Friday to uphold an order that they must start Monday and to deny a delay that had been sought by Gov. Chris Christie's administration.

The ruling puts New Jersey on the cusp of becoming the 14th state — and the third most populous among them — to allow same-sex marriage. As of Monday, one-third of Americans will live in a place where gay marriage is legal.

"The state has advanced a number of arguments, but none of them overcome this reality: Same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today," the court said in an opinion by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner. "The harm to them is real, not abstract or speculative."

A judge on a lower court had ruled last month that New Jersey must recognize same-sex marriage and set Monday as the date to allow weddings. Christie, a Republican who is considered a possible 2016 presidential candidate, appealed the decision and asked for the start date to be put on hold while the state appeals.

A spokesman for Christie said that he will comply with the ruling, though he doesn't like it.

"While the governor firmly believes that this determination should be made by all the people of the State of New Jersey, he has instructed the Department of Health to cooperate with all municipalities in effectuating the order," spokesman Michael Drewniak said in a statement.

Same-sex marriage is being debated elsewhere. Oregon has begun recognizing same-sex weddings performed out of state, and it is likely that voters will get a chance next year to repeal the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage. The Hawaii Legislature also soon could take up a bill to legalize same-sex unions, while a similar measure has passed the Illinois Senate but not the House. Lawsuits challenging gay marriage bans also are pending in several states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

RELATED:  PA governor: Same-sex marriage equivalent to brothers and sisters marrying

Liberal Media Allows Sanctimonious, Godless, Reality Star Jenni "JWoww" Farley To Lecture Chris Christie On Gay Marriage

It's always funny to me when the media allows a morally-bankrupt "celebrity" to lecture conservatives on a socially divisive issue. I mean, this woman was a "star" on a reality show that denigrated Italian-Americans while serving as a cesspool for crass, debauchery and vulgarity. Yet, somehow Chris Christie is the "bad guy" for having the nerve to believe in traditional marriage and wanting the people of Jersey to vote on it. Well done:

This feud is long past the Jersey Shore. 

Reality TV star Jenni "JWoww" Farley is taking Gov. Chris Christie to task for his views on gay marriage.
In an exclusive interview with the New York Daily News, Farley 27, says, "I'm going to come after you."

"If you have a problem with two people being in love, and you're against gay marriage, I have a problem with you," says Farley. 

"What happens between two human beings has nothing to do with Chris Christie and does not affect Chris Christie," she adds. " What does affect me is when my best friend can't get married in New Jersey, and my best friend's mother, who is a lesbian, can't get married."

The former "Jersey Shore" star is promoting the third season of "Snooki & JWoww," her spinoff with Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi.

This isn't the first spat between Christie and a "Jersey Shore" cast member. Christie has never hidden his disdain for the show, saying it portrays the Garden State in a negative light. But Farley says she forgives him for that. 

"The problems that he had with me, Nicole, Vinny (Guadagnino), Pauly (Delvecchio), I've put that aside," says Farley. "He's a politician, he's able to grant these wishes for people in love. Your personal opinion should have no effect on other people's love lives, especially if you're in a position of power."

Earlier this month, Farley apologized for calling Christie "retarded" for his stance on gay marriage. 

She later clarified the context of her remarks via Twitter. 

"Caught off guard last night and said things I normally don't say. I find it disgusting people are still against gay marriage...," she wrote. "So because of that I called [Chris] Christie a name which wasn't appropriate. I do find him disgusting and judgmental. I'm for gay equality."

A state Superior Court judge denied a request Thursday by Christie's administration to delay the Oct. 21 start date for gay marriages in New Jersey until its appeal is over. 

When confronted by a diner patron during a campaign stop in Edison earlier this week, Christie had this to say, on the matter, "My view is: If you want to change it, put it on the ballot. Let everybody decide. It shouldn't be decided by courts, it shouldn't be decided by politicians in Trenton."

RELATED: Christie’s debate comeback is his Bush moment

Pennsylvania Fights To Prohibit 'Gay' Marriage

WashingtonTimes.com:

In a bellwether case for states trying to preserve gay-marriage bans in a fast-shifting legal landscape, Pennsylvania officials are arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision this summer and the Obama administration’s approach should not undercut the state’s ability to enforce its own marriage laws.

State officials said in a legal brief filed this week that Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, and the state’s health secretary should be dropped as defendants in a federal case filed in July by nearly two dozen state residents over the gay-marriage ban, arguing that state officials are immune to being sued in federal court without their consent.

Pennsylvania is one of 37 states where gay marriage remains illegal, but it has been the target of multiple legal challenges to its statute as the only state in the Northeast that doesn’t allow either gay marriage or same-sex civil unions. Gay-marriage activists have filed federal lawsuits in states including Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina, believing federal judges would be more sympathetic to gay marriage and more willing to overturn state prohibitions.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in June on gay marriage did not find a constitutional right to same-sex nuptials and did not mandate that individual states must allow or recognize same-sex marriages, attorney William H. Lamb argued on behalf of Mr. Corbett and Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Michael Wolf. Mr. Lamb asked that all claims against Mr. Corbett and Mr. Wolf be dismissed.

All parties in the lawsuit, known as Whitewood v. Corbett, are scheduled to meet Wednesday with U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to discuss the case.

Pennsylvania is one of 19 states where gay-rights activists are suing to legalize same-sex marriage. Battles are underway in states with voter-passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, such as Arkansas and Virginia, as well as states that outlaw gay marriage only by statute, such as Illinois and West Virginia.

Many lawsuits were filed this summer after the Supreme Court struck down the section of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that said only marriages of one man and one woman could be recognized by the federal government.

In Pennsylvania, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Wolf are responding to a lawsuit filed by 10 gay couples, two children and a lesbian widow who are seeking to overturn Pennsylvania’s state amendment in favor of traditional marriage, also enacted in 1996.

RELATED: Chris Christie Appeals Gay Marriage Ruling To Higher Court

Pasta Maker Guido Barilla Causes Outrage in Italy After Saying He Would Not Consider Using a Gay Family to Advertise His Products

With gay, white men and their Godless advocates running the globe, it's only makes sense that a man standing up for traditional values would be taken down by the liberal press:

 TheGuardian.com:

Gay rights activists in Italy have launched a boycott of the world's leading pasta maker after its chairman said he would only portray the "classic family" in his advertisements and, if people objected to that, they should feel free to eat a different kind of pasta.

Guido Barilla, who controls the fourth-generation Barilla Group family business with his two brothers, sparked outrage among activists, consumers and some politicians when he said he would not consider using a gay family to advertise Barilla pasta.

"For us the concept of the sacred family remains one of the basic values of the company," he told Italian radio on Wednesday evening. "I would not do it but not out of a lack of respect for homosexuals who have the right to do what they want without bothering others … [but] I don't see things like they do and I think the family that we speak to is a classic family."

Asked what effect he thought his attitude would have on gay consumers of pasta, Barilla said: "Well, if they like our pasta and our message they will eat it; if they don't like it and they don't like what we say they will … eat another."

In response, Aurelio Mancuso, chairman of Equality Italia, accused Barilla of being deliberately provocative. "Accepting the invitation of Barilla's owner to not eat his pasta, we are launching a boycott campaign against all his products," he added.

Within hours, the hashtag 'boicotta-barilla' was trending on Twitter. The Barilla chairman issued a statement saying that he was sorry if his remarks had caused offence and that he had only been trying to draw attention to the "central role" played by women within the family.

"I apologise if my words generated misunderstandings or arguments, or if they offended the sensibilities of some people," he said.

RELATED: New Jersey judge orders legalization of gay marriage. Christie protests.

Brian Johnson, Evangelical Christian, Allowed To Distribute Bibles At Minneapolis Gay Pride Festival

A small victory for conservatives and those of us that know homosexuality to be a sin:

In the midst of a four-year legal battle with the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a Wisconsin man has been grated the right to once again distribute bibles at at the city's annual Gay Pride Festival in Loring Park next year.

Brian Johnson, a Wisconsin taxidermist, reportedly began distributing bibles with his family at the Twin Cities' annual Gay Pride Festival in 1998 with no complaints or instances of police intervention. However, festival organizers told Johnson in 2009 that he would not be allowed to distribute bibles and that the park was "private property" for that day. When he refused to leave, he was arrested. The charges were later dropped.
Johnson's legal battle over his place at the Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival since this arrest has been complicated.

After being turned away again in 2010, festival organizers appeared to side with Johnson, reportedly ruling that both his presence and bible distribution were protected under the First Amendment. This led to organizers for the Gay Pride Festival suing the Minneapolis Park Board in support of Johnson's First Amendment rights. U.S. District Judge John Tunheim imposed a compromise, stating: “In theory, Twin Cities Pride could designate ‘free-speech zones’ on the Pride Festival grounds in which anyone who wishes to distribute literature or display signage may do so.”

Both sides agreed and Johnson's distribution of religious propaganda was delegated to a booth in a "no pride zone," allowing him to return to the 2011 festival.

Nate Kellum, Johnson's attorney, reportedly noted, 

[The area] was a tract of land in a corner of the park where nobody would ever go because it was not part of a festival.... The government should not be exiling free speech, it should be protecting it... it’s ridiculous to say that the only place where people can hand out Bibles is an area where there’s no one to hand Bibles to. The Constitution simply does not permit the board to relegate free speech to isolated regions where no one can receive the message. That’s not free speech at all. It’s pure censorship.

Kellum appealed the ruling that confined Johnson to a booth to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and won Johnson an emergency injunction that allowed him to distribute bibles at the 2012 and 2013 Minneapolis pride events.

While Johnson's case against the Minneapolis Park Board has not been settled, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals filed an additional injunction last week that will allow him to disseminate bibles at the 2014 gay pride event while his case moves forward.

"I do this once a year," said Johnson. "I talk to people about the love of Jesus Christ." 

Kellum reportedly stated that he feels "very optimistic" that the court will rule in favor of Johnson.

RELATED:  Maggie Gallagher, Leading Gay Marriage Opponent: 'I Would Love Nothing More Than To Be Wrong'

Justice Ruth Ginsburg Officiates At "Gay Wedding"

FOXNews.com:

Two months after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to expand federal recognition of same-sex marriages, striking down part of an anti-gay marriage law,  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at a same-sex wedding.

The officiating is believed to be a first for a member of the nation's highest court. 

Ginsburg officiated Saturday at the marriage of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.

"Michael Kaiser is a friend and someone I much admire," Ginsburg said in a written statement Friday. "That is why I am officiating at his wedding."

The private ceremony took place at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a national memorial to President John F. Kennedy. The 80-year-old Ginsburg, an opera lover, is a frequent guest at the center.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the District of Columbia and 13 states.

"I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship," Ginsburg told The Washington Post in an interview.

"It won't be long before there will be another" performed by a justice. She has another ceremony planned for September.

Kaiser told The Associated Press that he asked Ginsburg to officiate because she is a longtime friend.

"It's very meaningful mostly to have a friend officiate, and then for someone of her stature, it's a very big honor," Kaiser said. "I think that everything that's going on that makes same-sex marriage possible and visible helps to encourage others and to make the issue seem less of an issue, to make it just more part of life."

Justices generally avoid taking stands on political issues. 

While hearing arguments in the case in March, Ginsburg argued for treating marriages equally. The rights associated with marriage are pervasive, she said, and the law had created two classes of marriage, full and "skim-milk marriage."

Before the court heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, Ginsburg told The New Yorker magazine in March that she had not performed a same-sex marriage and had not been asked. Justices do officiate at other weddings, though.

"I don't think anybody's asking us, because of these cases," she told the magazine. "No one in the gay-rights movement wants to risk having any member of the court be criticized or asked to recuse. So I think that's the reason no one has asked me."

Asked whether she would perform such a wedding in the future, she said: "Why not?"

Listen, conservatives have long known that Justice Ginsburg is a far-Left minion--she was a member of the ACLU for chrissakes. But this decision, to officiate a "gay wedding", wasn't just something Ginsburg was "doing for a friend", but an in-your-face diss towards Christians, social conservatives and anyone else who believes in and stands up for traditional marriage. Of course, she should now have to recuse herself from any future case that comes before SCOTUS involving same-sex wedding (or gays in general), but she won't. Because Justice Ginsburg doesn't care what you think and for all the disrespect Justices' Thomas and Scalia get for being 'too conservative' from the far-Left media, the hypocrites in the press will find a way to protect one of their favorite daughters.

RELATED: Time for Justice Ginsburg to Step Aside to Save Her Legacy

WNBA Player Sophia Young Stands Up To Gay Mafia, Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage

USAToday.com:

Sophia Young, a forward for the WNBA's San Antonio Silver Stars, spoke out against an LGBT anti-discrimination bill in San Antonio on Wednesday.

Young, who is out for the season with a torn anterior cruciate ligament in her right knee, tweeted her views against the bill, saying that the city shouldn't support same-sex marriage. She also participated in a pray-in-protest movement.

While the WNBA supported Young's right to speak, the league didn't condone her viewpoint.

"Sophia has the right to express her point of view, however, I do not share her view," WNBA President Laurel Richie said in a statement. "The WNBA supports diversity and we are committed to the equal and fair treatment of all people."

RELATED:  Liz Cheney: ‘I Am Not Pro-Gay Marriage’

New Mexico Supreme Court Finds Refusing to Photograph Gay Wedding Illegal

Only in the Godless country that is Barack Obama's America:

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that, by refusing to photograph a gay wedding, a photography studio violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

The court found that Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation,” according to the ruling.

Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, said that the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” In addition, the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

The owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish” Bosson wrote. Nevertheless, in the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

Doing so, Bosson said, is “the price of citizenship.”

The ruling affirms a grant of summary judgment for Willock against Elane Photography by New Mexico’s Second Judicial District Court and holds that Elane Photography’s free speech rights were not violated. The case was first decided by the New Mexico Human Rights Council, which ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys fees and costs. Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court based on the court’s original and appellate jurisdiction.

RELATED:  Lawyer for New Mexico photographer: Forcing her to work at a gay wedding violates her right of free expression