News Release
For Immediate Release: July 16, 2010
Contact: Diane Gramley 1.814.271.9078 or 1.814.437.5355
Danger of ‘Sexual Orientation’ Laws Once Again Demonstrated
(Harrisburg) – Yesterday the DC Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a 5-4 decision declaring the residents of the Nation’s Capitol do not have the right to vote on the definition of marriage because such an effort would amount to allowing discrimination. The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide traditional values group, noted the majority fell back on the district’s Human Rights Act stating it prohibited them from allowing the referendum.
“The AFA of PA has expressed concern in the past about the addition of ‘sexual orientation’ to laws and in Washington, DC we have yet another example of the danger – allowing the people to vote on the definition of marriage is discriminatory. This is ridiculous,” Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA remarked.
Eleven city council members and now five judges have forced same-sex marriage on Washington, DC. The majority of residents in the Capitol are African American and they are strong supporters of traditional one man one woman marriage. That is the very reason same-sex marriage supporters do not want this issue brought to a vote. Homosexual activists know that in 31 states where the issue was brought to a vote marriage won every time. The legalization of same-sex marriage is dependent upon activist judges.
Other states where ‘sexual orientation’ laws preceded the legalization of same-sex marriage include the following:
2008: California Supreme Court says a statewide domestic partner law means marriage should be legal because all the rights and privileges of marriage have been given to homosexual couples and now they should be allowed to use the word ‘marriage.’
2006, Lewis v Harris: The New Jersey Supreme Court cited the state’s non-discrimination laws to require the state legislature to either pass a same-sex marriage law or a civil union law.
2003, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health: The Massachusetts state Supreme Court opinion cited the state’s non-discrimination laws as evidence that the state should not discriminate in the area of marriage.
1999: The Supreme Court in Vermont forced the state legislature to pass either a same-sex marriage or civil union law, claiming that the state could not ban same-sex marriages or civil unions noting the fact they had an existing law outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
“The addition of ‘sexual orientation’ to laws is simply a stepping stone in the efforts of homosexual activists to redefine marriage and family. The DC Court’s use of its Human Rights Act to block this referendum should be a warning to any municipality being pressured by homosexual activists to add ‘sexual orientation.’ Such an addition has unforeseen consequences,” warned Gramley.
# # #
Loading ...