Fiorina voted in favor of Proposition 8 in 2008. When she announced her bid for Boxer’s seat last November, Fiorina reiterated her stance against gay marriage saying she “believes in the sanctity of a marriage between a man and a woman.” Fiorina has been relatively quiet on the issue since.

Paul Nathanson a Canadian religious scholar who just happens to be gay (duh!) was also trotted out in Varnum v. Brien which ultimately led to the Iowa Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. In the document Defending Faith, Family and Freedom by the Family Research Council Nathanson is quoted as saying that cultures can only survive and thrive via opposite-sex marriage.

“Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival … every human society has had to promote it actively … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

Not surprisingly marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher also surfaces in said document.

Nathanson and Young also co-authored  Marriage à la mode: Answering the Advocates of Gay Marriage in 2003 which attempts to dissect and tear down many marriage equality positions. Some of their arguments below.

Argument 7: Children would be no worse off with happily married gay parents than they are with unhappily married straight ones: This comparison is false, because it involves the best of one scenario with the worst of another. A legitimate comparison would compare either the best of both or the worst of both. Once again, we suggest that the best of marriage (providing at least one parent or other adult of each sex) is better than the best of gay marriage (which provides two parents of the same sex and none of the other one).

Argument 15: Anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic: This argument amounts to verbal terrorism. By “homophobic” is meant prejudice and hostility, although this word actually connotes the neuroticism of a phobia. The implication is that only evil or sick people can possibly disagree with any claim made by gay people. So much for the possibility of rational debate. (Never mind that not even all gay people are in favor of gay marriage.)

Moreover, this is an ad hominem argument. It is easy to trivialize arguments by attacking the personal integrity of those who make them. That way, you need not deal with the argument itself.

It’s a lengthy document but a good source for “verbal terrorists” such as myself in developing counter arguments.

The bill recommends penalties both for the applicants for marriage and the solemnizing officer.

Under the bill, the would-be partners face 15 years imprisonment and a P150,000 fine.

Likewise, anybody caught faking or trying to mis-declare his/her gender in order to secure a marriage license may be meted a 12-year jail term and a P100,000 fine.

If the offender is a public officer or employee, he/she shall be dismissed from government service and banned from re-employment in any public office.

Former Baptist minister turned lawmaker Bienvenido Abante Jr. introduced the bill last December saying that without the measure same sex unions would  “snap the remaining strand of our moral values.”

When serving as chairman of the Human Rights committee back in 2006 Abante rejected a bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, calling it a “culture of death” and reverse discrimination against heterosexuals.

Really.

My husband who was born and raised in the Philippines chimes in…

Why am I not surprised about this, especially coming from a very religious country like the Philippines. This is just another example of the power and control organized religion has in poor countries like this one.

It is safe to conclude that Bienvenido Abante, Jr. has the strong backing of the church, so I am not at all surprised with what he is doing right now. It is sad if not laughable to have him as the chairman of the Human Rights committee. Seriously, how can you be the chairman of the Human Rights committee and try to pass a bill that violates the core meaning of your position. Really, can somebody please tell this man what his job is all about?

I believe that it is inhumane to discriminate against another group of people just because of their sexual orientation and I think this is a reaction to what is going on in Western countires like the United States. I hope that the Filipino people, and not only the LGBT pinoys, will wake up and rise up against this reprehensible bill.

“Huwag matakot mga kapatid. Magkaisa tayo laban sa mga masasama.” (Don’t be afraid my brothers and sisters to unite against all that is evil and bad.)

A group of religious leaders representing various denominations released a 4,700 word manifesto today called the Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, which formally declares their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, among other things.. The document also encourages Christians to resist and disobey laws contrary to their teachings on those issues.

“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.

The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The document is the usual treasure trove of hate, one of the choicer passages below…

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

The signatories for the document is a who’s who of the anti-gay religious establishment, including James Dobson, Maggie Gallagher, Bishop Harry Jackson, Bill Donohue and  Tony Perkins.

Charles Colson, one of the authors of the declaration, pimps the document with some of the usual fear mongering in the clip below…

You can view the document in its entirety here (warning, the link may be a bit slow).

While Dolly Parton’s support of the gay community has hardly been secret, she does join other country music stars Reba McEntire and Martina McBride in supporting same-sex marriage.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Gay-marriage supporters refused to concede, holding out hope that that the tide might turn as the final returns came in.

“We’re here for the long haul and whether it’s just all night and into the morning, or it’s next week or next month or next year, we will be here,” said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. “We’ll be here fighting. We’ll be working. We will regroup.”

At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.

Chris Bowers over at OpenLeft reported earlier this evening of the possibility of a recount. The numbers were much closer then so its unclear if they are still considering that option.

It’s a sad, sad day for Mainers, who worked so hard and bravely for equality. The rest of us, particularly those of us in California, grieve with you.

On a personal note, with every defeat we suffer at the hand of these people it grows harder and harder not to return their hate with more hate. I don’t know how much longer as a community, we can or should put up with it.

Newsom is withdrawing from the Democratic primary amid lackluster poll numbers and meager fund-raising receipts. His withdrawal leaves state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who is expected to run even though he has not officially entered the race, with little opposition in the Democratic primary.

“It is with great regret I announce today that I am withdrawing from the race for governor of California,” Newsom said in a statement. “With a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to — and should be — done. This is not an easy decision. But it is one made with the best intentions for my wife, my daughter, the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats.”

Although Newsom had been effectively running for more than a year, his campaign never gained much traction. Even in his hometown, which Newsom touted as a model of cutting-edge policies, his candidacy was widely derided among civic insiders.

The events of 2004 which gave Newsom national prominence set off a chain reaction that ultimately led to overturning the gay marriage ban by the California Supreme Court and the ultimate passage of Prop 8.

“The woman at my polling place asked me do I believe in equality for gay and lesbian people. I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that. It made no sense to me. Finally I asked her: what do you think I fought for in Omaha Beach?”

Watch the entire clip below…

From the Bangor Daily News…

Everyone must be treated equally under the state and U.S. Constitution. Denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples violates that tenet.

Further, extending the right of marriage to a small segment of the population that has been excluded furthers the state’s interest in promoting stable families and communities. The Maine legislation also took important steps, mirroring the state’s Human Rights Law, to respect religious freedom and traditions. No church will be compelled to perform or recognize marriages that run counter to its faith. This strikes the difficult balance of respecting religious freedom while ensuring equality.

From the Portland Press Herald…

While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That’s why we urge people to vote “no,” to allow this reasonable law to go into effect.

Leaders of the people’s veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don’t buy them.

While it’s technically true that the law would change the wording of the definition of marriage in state statute, it would not change the institution as it exists in Maine for thousands of traditional couples. Those vows would not be any weaker if same-sex couples were allowed to take them. Marriage would remain the key foundation for creating families, with the rights and responsibilities that come with it spelled out in the law, whether those families are headed by same- or opposite-sex couples.

Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine’s tradition of equal protection under the law.

Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools – they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.

Sound, sensible arguments to be sure, but since when has logic gotten in the way of those who use their faith as a means to justify their hate?

Stand For Marriage Maine has started running this ad.

This despite the fact that Maine’s own Attorney General published a Legal Opinion stating:

“Whatever the benefits and burdens of the civil institution of marriage, the state’s definition of marriage has no bearing on the curricula in our public schools, either under current law or under LD 1020. Neither the Parker decision nor passage of LD 1020 “requires” or “allows” the teaching of any particular subject in our schools, in answer to the citizen question attached to your letter.”

I suppose when you can’t make logical arguments to support your case, you have to resort to FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). I just hope the independent minded citizen of Maine take the time to read the Maine AG’s legal opinion and see this ad for the FUD that it is.