The provisions on the prohibition of discrimination and the criminal sanctions imposed by the new legislation are so vague that a strict interpretation of the law renders persons criminally liable for reading out certain quotes from the Bible or the Quran, or even for disseminating major works by Darwin or Shakespeare. In addition, anyone cooperating with a ‘group
that repeatedly and apparently spreads discrimination and segregation’ may be punished, even if such cooperation would have been extended unwittingly.

ANDERSON, [Indiana] — A family values group has launched a campaign here chastising State Rep. Terri Austin for casting a vote against a bill last session that would have let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage in the state.

On an Eighth Street building, the Tupelo, Mo.-based American Family Association erected a billboard that questions Austin’s support of traditional marriage...

“We put that up to remind people of how Rep. Austin voted,” said Micah Clark, head of AFA Indiana. “She may have to vote on that issue again, and we want people to know how she voted last time.”

But Austin stands by her vote. She is opposed to same-sex marriage, but voted against the bill because it may have put in jeopardy the rights of unwed domestic partners — specifically, in regard to domestic violence laws, and how employers provide insurance to employees who live in a domestic partnership...

...[Many Catholic friends and relatives of gay and lesbian people in the Twin Cities] say they have been wounded and angered by comments [John Nienstedt, Coadjutor Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis] made about homosexuals in the Nov. 15 edition of The Catholic Spirit, the official newspaper of the archdiocese.

"Those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil," wrote Nienstedt...

The catechism, in my reading, [does say that] homosexual acts cannot be approved but does not label them a "grave evil."...

...Those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil and, if they do so knowingly and willingly, are guilty of mortal sin. They have broken communion with the church and are prohibited from receiving holy Communion until they have had a conversion of heart, expressed sorrow for their action and received sacramental absolution from a priest...

From "Archbishop Under Fire for Church Teaching on Homosexuality Supported by Catholic Parents," LifeSiteNews.com, November 29, 2007:

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, November 29, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Minnesota Majority, a non-partisan issue advocacy group seeking to restore traditional values to Minnesota's public policy, has provided the populace a method of aiding Archbishop John C. Nienstedt in the fight to affirm the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality.

Archbishop Nienstedt came under heavy criticism last week for writing an article defending his decision to bar advocates of the homosexual lifestyle from speaking at Catholic institutions...

Minnesota Majority, in conjunction with Catholic Parents Online, has provided two online resources to take action in support of Archbishop Nienstedt. Supporters are first encouraged to send a letter or e-mail of thanks and support to Archbishop Nienstedt: http://capwiz.com/mnmajority/issues/alert/?alertid=10565776&...

They are being encouraged to next send a letter to the editor of the Star Tribune defending the Archbishop's right to shepherd his flock: http://capwiz.com/mnmajority/issues/alert/?alertid=10591786&type=ME

A national campaign to block gay marriage came to New Jersey this week as conservative groups began airing radio advertisements and bombarded a key lawmaker's office with as many as 200 phone calls an hour.

The National Organization for Marriage debuted a radio ad warning "powerful special-interest groups want to redefine marriage," as the N.J. Family Policy Council sent out an e-mail urging people to phone legislative leaders and Gov. Jon Corzine.

Leaders of both organizations said they were trying to block an effort to legalize same-sex marriage during the lame-duck session of the Legislature that ends Jan. 8, when new lawmakers are sworn...

...[A new study] released today by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation at the UCLA School of Law concluded that Maryland's budget would see a positive impact of 3.2 million dollars annually if the state allowed same-sex couples to marry.

The report found that the loss of revenue from transfer taxes and increased spending on state employee benefit programs would be outweighed by a reduction in spending on public benefit programs and sales tax revenue from weddings.

The Williams Institute has conducted similar surveys in eight other states; all have found an economic benefit from legalizing gay marriage...

...[The new brochure from Mitt Romney's presidential campaign] juxtaposes photos and quotes from Romney showing his support for a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman with photos and quotes showing that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson all oppose such a measure.

But it makes no mention of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Baptist preacher whose website says he has consistently supported a federal marriage amendment and led successful efforts to pass such an amendment at the state level in 2002. Huckabee has surged from the back of the pack to a virtual tie with Romney for first place in the Iowa polls...

The brochure is aimed at social conservatives who make up a powerful constituency in Iowa, where Romney has run TV and radio ads on his opposition to gay marriage. He also was the first candidate to criticize a judge who ruled Iowa's gay marriage ban unconstitutional...

Support among Hoosiers for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage appears to be on the decline, according to an Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll.

The poll...found that 49 percent of Hoosiers supported the amendment. That number is down from 56 percent in a March 2005 survey by The Star.

Of the respondents, 44 percent said they opposed a constitutional ban, up from 40 percent in 2005.

Earlier this year, the Indiana Senate passed the constitutional ban, but the amendment was voted down in a House committee. Efforts to revive the amendment are expected during the 2008 legislative session...

"The evening began with a defiantly defeatist toast. Husbands reminded themselves of what their organization -- the improbably named National Chauvinistic Husbands Association -- preaches as a sound strategy for arguing with one's wife.

"I can't win. I won't win. I don't want to win," they bellowed in unison, before tippling from tall schooners of draft beer."

Claims by the Roman Catholic Church that the government would be offering money to help them avoid [the new Sexual Orientation Regulations that make it illegal to discriminate against gay, lesbian and bisexual people when providing goods and services] in their adoption agencies have been dismissed by the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

In a statement issued last week on the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales website, they claim the government will "pay for further work to be done to explore whether within the law there might yet be ways found which will enable the adoption work to carry on and for our agencies to continue."...

The Church was given 18 months to adjust its practices so that it can allow gay couples to adopt from its agencies or close them down.

A spokesperson from the DCSF told PinkNews.co.uk: "We don't provide money to get around government regulations...

WHY do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families...

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry...

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry...But governments began relying on marriage licenses for a new purpose: as a way of distributing resources to dependents...

In the 1950s, using the marriage license as a shorthand way to distribute benefits and legal privileges made some sense because almost all adults were married...Today, however, possession of a marriage license tells us little about people’s interpersonal responsibilities...

Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.