Despite the existence of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, the IRS is moving to treat homosexual couples to some of the same tax benefits of legally married couples under a new ruling that overturns a previous ruling on the same subject during the Bush Administration.  (via WSJ)

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that same-sex couples must be treated the same as heterosexual couples under a feature of California tax law. Advocates for the change say it is the first time the agency has acknowledged gay couples as a unit for tax purposes.

The change reverses a 2006 IRS ruling and opens a tax benefit to many same-sex couples that wasn't available before. It may affect couples in Nevada and Washington state, as well.

Specifically, the agency said nearly 58,000 couples who are registered as domestic partners in California must combine their income and each report half
of it on their separate tax returns. Same-sex couples account for an
estimated 95% of the state's domestic partnerships; partnership status
is also available to heterosexual couples in which one partner is over
age 62. ...

The Hawaii legislature, in the final minutes of this years session, broke the trust of its people by voting to allow HB444 regarding civil unions to become law.  Although they needed a 2/3rds majority, as this bill was originally voted to be tabled for the year, they then conducted a "sneak attack" and voted to suspend their own rules and to allow a simple majority vote for the bill to pass.  It then passed by a vote of 31-20.

The opposition rally to this bill numbered around 12,000, while the bill supporters numbered around 100 during their rally.  This bill would allow gay couples to have the same benefits and rights as married couples, and the vast majority of the state clearly oppose this bill.

Our hope is now that the Governor will veto this bill, as the Speaker of the House has publicly stated that he will not call for a special session to try for an override.

We ask that you now stand with us and contact Governor Linda Lingle (phone: 808-586-0034 - fax: 808-586-0006 - email: gov.policy@hawaii.gov or governor.lingle@hawaii.gov) to encourage her to veto this bill.  She has until July 6th to sign, veto, or allow this measure to become law without her signature.

Hawaii Christian Coalition Chairman Garret Hashimoto will be meeting with the governor on May 24th to encourage her veto.

Please help us generate as much feedback to her office as possible.

(Click here and visit the Hawaii Christian Coalition online)

In what's starting to look like a case of history repeating itself, a contestant in the upcoming Miss California pageant has let it slip that she's opposed to gay marriage. And liberals are having fits.

In this case, the city council of Beverly Hills - the very city which Lauren Ashley will represent - has condemned her views and is demanding that the pageant not allow her to use the moniker "Miss Beverly Hills" in the competition.

Via Fox News:

Former Miss California Carrie Prejean isn't the only beauty queen open to expressing her objection to same-sex marriage. Miss Beverly Hills 2010 Lauren Ashley is also speaking out in support of traditional nuptials.

Miss Beverly Hills and upcoming Miss California contender Lauren Ashley spoke out to Pop Tarts earlier this week against gay marriage -- and as a result she has been publicly condemned by the City of Beverly Hills.

Gay marriage activists in Texas are trying to use divorce as a means to legalizing gay marriage in that state.  And it looks like they've found at least one judge that's willing to help them do it.

Even though only five states currently recognize gay marriage - and even though Texas isn't one of them (having passed a constitutional amendment on the issue) - a state judge has granted a "divorce" to a gay couple in that state who were "married" in another state.

Thankfully, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has stepped in to stand up for the voters in his state.  After the judges decision, Abbott released a statement saying:

"The Court has no legal authority to
grant this divorce, and as a result, the State must intervene in this
case to defend the Texas Constitution."

While it might seem kind of obvious to most people (especially Texas voters) that you grant end (by way of divorce) something that state law doesn't recognize as having ever begun.  Which is exactly why gay activist are using the case.  The point is to use the fabricated legal conundrum as a way to bring judges back into the debate in Texas, given that voters in that state have already had their say and rejected gay marriage.

In yet another instance of the consequences of redefining the family, the Catholic Archdiocese in Washinton, DC has been forced to discontinue its foster program, as it would be at legal risk for not placing children with homosexual "married" couples.

According to the new DC gay marriage law (which goes into effect on March 2nd), outside organizations that contract to provide services have to recognize gay marriages in Washington.  In other words, the religious rights of Christian groups that don't recognize homosexual "marriage" as being legitimate are being violated due to their faith. 

And of course this is in addition to the impact on the children that are helped by Christian (as opposed to state run) foster care programs, such as this one which has been around for over 80 years.

Come to think of it, this is probably not an "unintended" consequence.

Over the course of the debate over gay "marriage", supporters have made contended that homosexuals provide stable family environments, at least as much as heterosexuals.  You hear a lot of this in debates over adoption policies as well. Well now a new study is about to be released (out of San Francisco of all places), that should cast some much deserved doubt on that notion.

The study, done by San Francisco State University, was recently previewed in the New York Times (no doubt as potential damage control) and it finds that about half of all male gay couples admit that they regularly engage in sexual activity outside of their "committed" relationship...with the approval of their partner.  Again, half admitted to such behavior, which leaves you to wonder about the other half.

Of course, in the process of doing its damage control duty, the Times did its best to put a positive spin on the study, suggesting that this kind of "transparency can make relationships stronger".

So it's come to this?  Suggesting that "open" marriages can be more stable, therefore gay marriage is no problem?  The one and only reason to even make such a suggestion is because they are worried that this revelation will hurt the chances of approving gay marriage in other states.

Supporters of gay marriage in California have now taken their case against that state's marriage amendment to federal court.  At issue is California's Proposition 8, in which voters in 2008 voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Given that this is now a federal case, it will start out in district court, then - no matter who wins or loses - will be appealed to the (liberal) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the US Supreme Court.

In the end, it's not just California's Prop 8 that's at issue, but it will be the definition of marriage in all fifty states.  In other words, what the pro-gay marriage crowd is looking for is the gay marriage equivalent of Roe vs. Wade, where the Supreme Court steps in and sweeps aside citizen passed laws all across the country and short circuits the political process all together.

From the Baptist Press:

Given all the attention paid to the election results in Virginia and New Jersey, it was easy to miss if you weren't paying attention, but voters in Maine comfortably passed a referendum overturning their state legislature's recent enactment of a gay marriage law in that state.

After the law legalizing gay marriage was passed and signed by their governor this past summer, conservatives got organized and initiated a petition to get what amounts to a "citizen's veto" put on the ballot, which allows the public to overrule laws passed by the legislature.  (Imagine have that option on things passed in DC!)

After being outspent almost two to one, to say nothing of having to fight against the mainstream media as well, traditional marriage supporters came out on top and passed the referendum by approximately 53% to 47%.

This was special for a few reasons.

First, it was the first time that voters have been able to overturn gay marriage in a state where it was put in place by a state legislature, (as opposed to the usual suspects of liberal judges).

Second, it continues the unbroken string of thirty-one victories in a row where traditional marriage has been on the ballot.  In fact, voters in no state whatsoever have ever approved gay marriage when they were given the option.

Which should give a little pause to the liberal Democrats in Washington with designs on overturning the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

***

Like many newspapers, The Contra Costa Times has a history of attacking Christians and slanting the news to fit the liberal socialist agenda. On September 1st, their page 2 "People" section went after the real Miss USA, Carrie Prejean, stating that she filed a lawsuit in order to bring more attention to herself. This pastor promptly wrote a response with request to publish. After ignoring the request for two weeks they received a second notice, a bit more forceful, advising that by deliberately printing misinformation about Ms. Prejean, they were obligated to publish my response to correct their mis-statements.

Two days later, Thursday September 17th, my edited response was published thusly:

Unfair to Prejean