Controlling The Message

In times past, censorship was imposed on the media by totalitarians who regarded dissent as unpatriotic and subversive. They would close down newspapers or send gangs of thugs to smash the presses.

Things operate differently nowadays. Censorship is self-imposed. The most remarkable example that I have come across after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalising same-sex marriage comes from The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, the capital of the state of Pennsylvania. The paper has a new editorial policy: it “will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage. These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.” Read more…

RNC Resolution for Marriage and Children 2013

Whereas, the institution of marriage is the solid foundation upon which our society is built and in which children thrive; and it is based on the relationship that only a man and a woman can form; and

Whereas, support for marriage has been repeatedly affirmed nationally in the 2012 Republican National Platform, through the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (signed into law by President Bill Clinton), and passed by the voters of 41 States including California via Proposition 8 in 2008; and

Whereas, no Act of human government can change the reality that marriage is a natural and most desirable union; especially when procreation is a goal; and

Whereas, the future of our country is children; it has been proven repeatedly that the most secure and nurturing environment in which to raise healthy well adjusted children is in a home where both mother and father are bound together in a loving marriage; and

Whereas, the U. S. Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of laws adopted to protect marriage from the unfounded accusation that support for marriage is based only on irrational prejudice against homosexuals; therefore be it

Resolved, the Republican National Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America; and be it further

Resolved, the Republican National Committee implores the U. S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California‟s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

As adopted by the Republican National Committee on April 12, 2013.

March for Marriage 2014

June 19, 2014 in Washington DC.  Details at March for Marriage 2014.

Schuylkill County Clerk Seeks Standing for Marriage Appeal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Schuylkill County Clerk Files Motion to Intervene in Marriage Lawsuit

This afternoon, Jim Smith and David Crossett, attorneys with the Smith Law Group, LLC, located in Fleetwood, Berks County, Pennsylvania, and Jeff Conrad, attorney with Clymer, Musser & Conrad, P.C., located in Lancaster County, on behalf of Theresa Santai Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphan’s Court of Schuylkill County, filed a Motion to Intervene in Whitewood v. Wolf, the case in which a single federal District Judge declared unconstitutional for all Pennsylvanians, the Commonwealth’s longstanding definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Theresa Santai Gaffney, Clerk of the Orphan’s Court, is seeking intervention in the case so that the ruling can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Governor Corbett, who had been defending the law, declined to appeal the ruling. “An appeal is necessary so that the judicial process is not abandoned,” stated Ms. Gaffney. “The people of Pennsylvania deserve to hear from the Court of Appeals on this important issue because a single judge should not be able to nullify the will of the majority without an appeal.”

Marriage between one man and one woman has always been the law in Pennsylvania. “I respect the law of our Commonwealth and the will of the people reflected in the law,” said Ms. Gaffney. “I believe that the voice of those who think that our law is constitutional and best serves all citizens of the Commonwealth should be heard.”

“Due to the uncertainty of the state of the law, I will continue issuing marriage licenses to all couples,” said Ms. Gaffney.

One of the reasons that she is seeking to intervene in this case is to obtain clarity about her official duties.

The Motion to Intervene asks the Court for the ability to join the lawsuit for purposes of appeal.

PA GOP Statement on Marriage Ruling

“Today, an activist judiciary has substituted its judgment in place of the law created by the elected representatives of Pennsylvania and has stifled the ongoing debate of people with differing points of view. The questions that face our commonwealth are best aired in the legislature with the representatives of the people.  This complete disregard of the important roles held by each branch of government is just another reason why we need to elect principled people to office to uphold our Constitution.

“Grassroots activists came together in 2012 to debate and form our Republican Party Platform, which clearly supports the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“We believe all Pennsylvanians deserve dignity and respect regardless of their beliefs on this issue. However, the citizens of the Commonwealth also deserved to be participants in the ongoing discussion rather than be dictated to by judicial fiat.”

%d bloggers like this: