State to same-sex domestic partners: You’re about to be married

On June 30, the state of Washington will convert to marriage the domestic partnerships of thousands of gay and lesbian couples who have not gotten married on their own or not gotten a legal dissolution.   Thousands of gay and lesbian domestic partners who have not married or legally dissolved their unions by the end of June will have their relationships automatically converted to marriage — courtesy of the state.

Read more at The Seattle Times Read More......

Gresham bakery: example of why people mistrust the media

By Dan Lucas
Gallup reported a year ago that distrust in the media had hit a new high, with 60% saying they had little or no trust in newspapers, TV and radio when it came to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly. ✧ A recent example in Oregon shows why there is that distrust. ✧ The example involves the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham. In January the bakery said they wouldn’t bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple for a same-sex marriage, as it violated their religious beliefs. The bakery had previously sold a wedding cake to the same lesbian couple when the wedding cake wasn’t for a same-sex marriage, and the bakery does sell their cakes to gays and lesbians, just not for same-sex marriages. Find out what the press 'didn't report' at Oregon Catalyst... Read More......

Fox Nation: Scalia Blasts ‘High-Handed’ Justices in Scathing Dissent of DOMA Ruling

Dissenting from [Wednesday's] opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back. ✧ In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race." See Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA.

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

Source: Fox Nation Read More......