By Junior Mayema,
My blog will keep you updated with the latest developments on this issue until something positive come out in order to eradicate inequality, injustice and discrimination against samesex couples in the american society and even with within the Government of this great nation :
The Human Rights Campaign has published a listing of six of the 114th Congress’s most ardently anti-LGBT members. The six Republicans featured in the “Faces of Inequality” hail from a wide range of different professional backgrounds, but their track records regarding gay marriage, ENDA, and anti-bullying legislation are all exactly what you would expect:
-
Jody Hice (R-GA): compared marriage equality to bestiality and incest, and said “The concept of ‘love’ is not the issue when it comes to marriage!”
-
Glenn Grothman (R-WI): promised to be “an outspoken” opponent of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) because it gives “preferences” to LGBT employees.
-
Tom Emmer (R-MN): said he would not sign anti-bullying legislation to promote safe schools because “I don’t want the government doing that for us.”
-
Cresent Hardy (R-NV): was one of only 13 lawmakers who voted against Nevada’s bill banning housing and job discrimination against transgender people.
-
Mike Bost (R-IL): opposed any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples, saying, “I didn’t vote for civil unions and I won’t be voting for gay marriages.”
-
Thom Tillis (R-NC): has continued his fight against marriage equality in North Carolina, hiring a rabidly anti-LGBT activist attorney from the fanatical anti-equality National Organization for Marriage.
Violence and discrimination against LGBT people arew motivated by deeply rooted irrational religious beliefs that are fueling violences and crimes targeting LGBT people, progress is a Must, it is inevitable, there is no other option, we want marriage equality now, the Justices must stop ignoring the reality or slowing down progress, families are left in legal limbo and uncertainty and it must stop and now
this is what religious people are saying below:
America awaits justices’ action on same-sex marriage
“It might not be a bad thing to wait until next term either,” when there could be a pro-states’ rights ruling from the Fifth Circuit, she told Baptist Press.
Fiedorek holds out hope the Supreme Court will follow its past decisions on the issue.
The justices made it “very clear” the authority to “define marriage lies within the states and the people of those states” in their June 2013 decision invalidating part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, she said. “So if they’re consistent with that, I think that they will uphold states’ rights yet again.”
Though the high court refused in that U.S. v. Windsor ruling to say states could not limit marriage to heterosexual couples, most courts have used the decision as a basis for striking down state laws that define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
“I think that a lot of decisions that we’re seeing are improperly interpreting Windsor and also failing to recognize other court precedent,” she told BP. “It’s really a stretch to say that it is unconstitutional to allow states to affirm marriage in the way that they’ve been defining it for years, for centuries.”
The spread of government-endorsed gay marriage requires a response by the church, Duke said.
“As the marriage landscape changes, it should be obvious to everyone that the church cannot simply sit back and let this work itself out,” he told BP in a written statement. “The freedom for people of faith and their institutions to live and work in accordance with the dictates of their faith without fear of reprisal is at stake.”
Duke recommended a multi-pronged reply by the church:
— “First, we should pray that God will intervene on behalf of the church and change hearts and minds about what constitutes marriage.
— “Second, we must work to provide legal protections for people of faith and conscience.” That could start, he said, with states enacting versions of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires the government to have a compelling interest and to use narrow means to burden a person’s religious exercise.
— “Third, we must include clear statements in our church governing documents that express our beliefs about marriage and the conditions under which we will allow our facilities to be used. Churches should do this before they are asked to accommodate same-sex weddings to avoid accusations that they are acting out of animus toward particular individuals.
— “Fourth, we must re-engage our communities to help them understand why we oppose same-sex marriage. We have many valid reasons for our opposition, and hatred is not one of them. We should try to help our neighbors understand this.”
With the expansion of legalized, same-sex marriage, professionals who provide services for weddings have been especially vulnerable to efforts to force them to contradict their beliefs. For example, ADF is defending, or has defended, the following Christians and their businesses:
— Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Wash., who is in court after being sued by the state attorney general and the American Civil Liberties Union for declining to arrange flowers for a same-sex wedding.
— Jack Phillips, a Lakewood, Colo., cake shop owner who has appealed to a state court a Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruling against him for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony.
— Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, owners of a New Mexico photography business who denied a request to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. In April, the Supreme Court refused to review the New Mexico high court’s decision that the Huguenins had violated the state’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination.
“No one should be compelled to be a mouthpiece for the government’s ideology,” Fiedorek said of the cases. “They should be free to follow their conscience, and that means living according to their beliefs wherever they are — whether they’re at work or at home or at church.
“[T]he sad part of all of this is true tolerance would be to respect their freedom,” she told BP. In all such cases ADF is litigating, there are plenty of florists, bakers and photographers without conscience objections “more than willing” to provide the requested services, she said.
“It’s an unfortunate tragedy really to see these cases continuing,” Fiedorek said. “And we’re hopeful that courts will ultimately respect these fundamental rights of their First Amendment freedoms.”
The freedom of Christians and others who ascribe to a biblical sexual ethic also is imperiled by the spread of LGBT rights. Cities, and even smaller municipalities, increasingly are enacting ordinances expanding anti-discrimination protections to LGBT people in employment, housing and public accommodation, which covers hotels, restaurants and other businesses.
Opponents contend the laws often infringe upon freedom of religion and conscience for individuals, churches and businesses.
Such ordinances essentially allow governments to “pick favorites,” Fiedorek told BP.
“They allow the government to come into your private life or come into your business and essentially dictate what you can say or what you can think or what you can create and what you can’t,” she said.
“These laws threaten not only religious freedom, freedom of conscience, which they do, but they threaten freedom generally and the ability to live our lives, … to conduct our businesses according to our beliefs, and they ultimately threaten the diversity and … the tolerance of all viewpoints that has made America great for so long.”
Among those who have felt the brunt of local LGBT policies are:
— Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, a Southern Baptist church member who was fired Jan. 6 after publishing a book in which he defended the biblical view of sexuality and described homosexual behavior as immoral.
— Blaine Anderson, a Lexington, Ky.-area, printer who is challenging an order by the county Human Rights Commission to print shirts that promote the pro-gay Lexington Pride Festival.
The city councils of Houston and Plano, Texas, are among those that approved LGBT ordinances in 2014. At one point, the Houston government even subpoenaed the sermons of pastors who opposed the ordinance as part of a lawsuit before backing down.
Some municipalities recently have refused to endorse such laws. Fayetteville, Ark., voters repealed in December a pro-homosexual/transgender ordinance after the city council had approved it in August. In October, the Berea, Ky., City Council rejected a similar law in a 5-3 vote, according to the Associated Press.
“I think passing these on the citywide, municipal level is part of the new strategy of the other side, because oftentimes they know they can’t pass it at the state level,” Fiedorek said.
“But what we’re also beginning to see [is] people are recognizing that these ordinances are not necessary … that their city was tolerant and diverse enough and they don’t need these laws that ultimately give special protection to some and take away freedom from others.”
And here are some developments so far :
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, issued a statement:
“Once again an appellate court was presented with the lopsided case in favor of the freedom to marry, the opponents having no evidence and no significant legal justification to outweigh the powerful arguments for ending the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. Couples in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have the same aspirations for love and commitment, the same needs for the legal protections and responsibilities marriage brings, and the same rights under the Constitution as couples in the vast majority of the country where marriage discrimination has been discarded. Freedom to Marry joins these couples and their advocates in calling on the 5th Circuit to do what nearly 60 state and federal courts, including four federal circuit courts, have now done: affirm the freedom to marry and end the discrimination that harms families and helps no one.”
And more developments :
Otter had requested that an 11-judge panel review the October decision by three judges that Idaho’s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. On Friday, the 9th Circuit rejected Otter’s request. Three judges dissented from the majority, noting that a 6th Circuit decision upheld similar laws in four states.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/appellate-court-reconsider-idaho-gay-marriage-28127520
And here is here what is happening so far at the Supreme court follow this links below :
The Supreme Court on Friday did not announce any action on requests that it decide this term whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
The justices were scheduled to consider at their private conference cases from five states in which lower courts have said states may limit marriage to its traditional definition of a union between a man and a woman. Most courts have gone the other way and struck down state prohibitions as unconstitutional; same-sex couples may marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.
The Supreme Court’s lack of official action on Friday does not indicate a decision about whether to take cases. The justices generally have until the end of January to add cases and still have time for oral arguments and a decision by the time they adjourn at the end of June.
juniorstopdiscriminationtodaymayema 