The Maryland Senate is delaying debate on a bill to legalize gay marriage.

Republican leaders asked that discussion of the bill and potential amendments be postponed until Thursday.

Sen. President Thomas V. Mike Miller said the Senate could gather into the evening that day to consider the bill, which barely passed the House of Delegates last week. Debate could continue Friday before a final vote is taken.

Opponents have offered an amendment to change the bill’s effective date and say they have asked Attorney General Doug Gansler for an opinion on the constitutionality of amendments added to the House version of the bill.

You can take action to contact your state senator in Maryland here.

In an appearance on Al Jazeera, I was asked: Why is gay marriage emerging as a big issue in the campaign?

Obviously economic issues dominate this year, as they do every bad economic year. But thanks to President Obama, the culture war is heating up as well.

For the first time, voters will be offered a clear contrast between a Democrat who supports what the courts are doing to marriage and a Republican who opposes it.

But the biggest reason gay marriage is emerging as an issue is because the federal courts are now pushing the culture wars, and Obama is cooperating with them:

Two judges of the most liberal court in America -- the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- just took away 7 million Californians' right to vote for marriage.

For those of us who fought hard to give voters this right, by helping put Proposition 8 on the ballot, this 2-1 divided opinion not only takes away their rights, but insults the good name of millions of decent, hardworking, law-abiding Americans. -- Human Events

"...Starbucks last month endorsed the effort of some of the Evergreen State’s leading politicians to enact homosexual “marriage.” Although this initiative passed in the state legislature and was signed into law by departing Gov. Christine Gregoire, it likely will be on the state ballot in November.

... [CEO Howard] Schultz’s decrying of divisiveness rings a bit hollow when he plunges his company feet-first into the culture wars. The effort to redefine marriage to include same-sex partners is a radical social innovation, one fraught with dangerous implications for individuals, families, and culture. Claiming to be post-political and then allowing one’s chief corporate spokesperson to say that same-sex “marriage” is “is core to who we are and what we value as a company” are assertions that don’t quite add up.

So, for now, at least, I will buy my overpriced flavored coffees elsewhere. I dislike boycotts for a number of reasons, but am undertaking a personal one at present. Being for marriage, as understood in the Judeo-Christian context and Western tradition, is much more to “the core of who I am” than a Starbucks iced mocha ever will be." -- LifeSiteNews

The Obama administration did an about-face concerning military policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act on Friday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress the Department of Justice will not stand in the way of any service members’ same-sex spouses suing the military for spousal benefits.

... Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, said Holder’s letter is constitutionally weak.

“It’s all just made up. There’s no part of the Constitution that talks about sexual orientation, the need for the government to give benefits to people,” he said. “This is really troubling because it’s a pattern. We’re not dealing with an administration that adheres to the basic constitutional principle that the government is supposed to do only what it’s given power to do by the Constitution.” -- CitizenLink

... In addition to blogging, Peters works at the National Organization for Marriage where he is overseeing a project to identify and encourage young activists who are pro-marriage.

Marriage could be a big issue this year, with a number of states – like Washington and Maryland – considering legislation to legalize gay marriage. Other states, including Minnesota and North Carolina, are trying to add traditional marriage to the state constitution.

As part of his work for NOM, Peters travels the country speaking to young people, and teaching them how to defend their views.

“We have to work hard at understanding our own conservative principles so we are better equipped to defend and promote them,” He said.

And social media is key, he noted, “It contributes to a more robust and free democracy.”

...Though the [Prop 8] case will certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, CitizenLink Judicial Issues Analyst Bruce Hausknecht pointed out the advantages of asking for an en banc review by the 9th.

“This keeps all options available,” he said. “Although the 9th Circuit is dominated by Democrat-appointed judges, there is always the hope that the 11-judge en banc panel chosen via lottery could contain enough judicial conservatives that it might reverse the three-judge panel’s decision. And failing that, the Supreme Court option is always available afterward. It’s always wise, in the uncertain world of litigation, to keep your options open and explore all available alternatives.”

The 9th Circuit has the option of turning the case down. If that happens, the ProtectMarriage.com legal team will immediately appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)

Washington, D.C.—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today said that the decision of the proponents of Proposition 8 to seek review of the panel’s split decision to overturn Prop 8 gives the Ninth Circuit the opportunity to correct a grievous error and reverse the panel’s decision.

“Even though we were looking forward to the US Supreme Court finally getting this case right away -- because we fully expect them to uphold Proposition 8 and traditional marriage -- we understand the desire of the proponents of Prop 8 to have the grievous error made by the panel reversed at the soonest possible moment,” said Brian Brown. “We wouldn’t normally have a lot of confidence in the Ninth Circuit, but the decision to invalidate Prop 8 is so outlandish that perhaps even the remaining justices of the Ninth Circuit itself won’t be able to stomach it. We can support this decision to seek en banc review.”

In a hotly-divided 2-1 opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit led by uber-liberal Justice Stephen Reinhardt ruled that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to US Constitution and is thus invalid. Reinhardt, the most overturned appellate court justice in America, wrote an opinion that ignored Supreme Court precedent and conflicts with every state and federal appellate court opinion that have upheld traditional marriage laws like Proposition 8.

“NOM will continue to support the efforts of the proponents of Propsoition 8 to defend the initiative and traditional marriage itself,” Brown said. “We look forward to the higher courts recognizing that marriage between one man and one woman not only is not unconstitutional, it is profoundly in the public good.”

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Anath Hartmann,ahartmann@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Last week, the UK’s most powerful homosexualist lobby group, Stonewall, presented legislation to Parliament that proposes five steps to resolve the legal complexities involved in introducing same-sex “marriage”

Among the suggested legal changes, Stonewall’s draft bill would amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to remove the terms “husband” and “wife” and replace with “parties to a marriage.”

Although Stonewall did not hold a formal position on same-sex “marriage” until recently, it is clear that the group was simply waiting for a more opportune political moment, when same-sex “marriage” legislation would have cross-party support, and a chance of passing the Hose of Lords. That moment appears to be now.

... In response to the legalization effort, a campaign to stop the redefinition of marriage was launched today by Christian leaders, led by George Lord Carey, the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury who is known for his social conservative views. Carey said that the effort redefine marriage “constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history.”

“For thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman has been the bedrock of societies across cultures all around the world,” he said at this morning’s launch of the Coalition for Marriage.

“Marriage is a cornerstone of our society. Because of this, I believe the general public will oppose the present attempt to fundamentally alter – and undermine – the institution.”

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. For the most part, his position was treated as a nonissue.

Now Rick Santorum is campaigning for president. He too says that marriage is between a man and a woman. What a different reaction he gets.

There's no mystery why. Mr. Santorum is attacked because everyone understands that he means what he says.

President Obama, by contrast, gets a pass because everyone understands—nudge nudge, wink wink—that he's not telling the truth. The press understands that this is just one of those things a Democratic candidate has to say so he doesn't rile up the great unwashed.

It's arguably the most glaring double standard in American life today. It helps explain why candidates with social views that are fairly conventional among ordinary Americans—the citizens of 31 states including California have rejected same-sex marriage when put to a vote—find themselves depicted as extreme.

"...The majority did not accept the broadest argument pressed by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, the celebrity legal team challenging Proposition 8, the voter initiative that overturned a California Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to same-sex marriage. Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies had urged the appeals court to find that the federal Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry — a rationale that would apply in all 50 states.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who may be the most liberal member of the famously liberal United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, refused to bite. He opted instead for a local solution. California’s voters, he said, had no legitimate reason to use “their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed.” Doing that, he said, violated the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause. The broader question could wait.

Many gay rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief. They had long been wary of the Proposition 8 suit, preferring a state-by-state litigation and lobbying strategy over betting the farm on a case that was likely to end up in the United States Supreme Court. Some said they hoped the justices would now decline to hear an idiosyncratic case affecting a single state."

On the question (which often comes up in interviews) that more people support redefining marriage, Maggie reminds us:

"...Only 40% [of Americans] support gay marriage. What we've found is the polls have consistently overstated support for gay marriage because Americans are becoming sensitive to how the question is worded and they're also concerned about, they don't want to appear anti-gay, but when you go to the polling booth, it's clear that [marriage] is a very mainstream winning position in America today, whatever [gay marriage activists] hope to create in America down the road."

And she continues:

"I was told that the pro-life sentiment would be virtually disappearing from the public square because all the young people were [pro-choice] in 1978, instead, as the movement has worked to stand for values and pull other Americans together we're now in a country where close to half of the people or more say they are pro-life so, we'll see what happens in the future but I will promise you today and in November of 2012 not being for gay marriage is not going to hurt Santorum, or Romney or Gingrich.

At this point Pew Forum Research Center's senior researcher David Masci adds:

"I agree with Maggie when she says that polling sometimes doesn't get this. In California there were a whole slew of polls before Proposition 8 was approved that showed Proposition 8 being defeated and of course it was ultimately approved, admittedly by a slim margin, but still I believe I think it was 51-48 or something, so sometimes polls don't get this right and I also agree with her about abortion, in fact if anything the number of people who oppose abortion has actually ticked up in recent years, so we don't know what the future holds."

Overall, 47% support the marriage protection amendment, 39% oppose and 4% say they are not sure (these tend to vote for marriage more often that not).

38% of Minnesotans under 35 support the amendment.

31% of Democrats support the amendment.

55% of Independents support the amendment.

Even in the most liberal area of the state, the Twin Cities metro region, 42% support the marriage protection amendment.

A good reminder that support for marriage crosses ideological, regional and demographic lines!

Holding a Bible and an 8-month-old baby, the Rev. Nathaniel B. Thomas stood before his congregation at Forestville New Redeemer Baptist Church on Sunday and declared that last week’s vote in the Maryland House of Delegates supporting same-sex marriage will spark a new battle.

“It ain’t over until God says that it is over,” Thomas said. “It took one woman to take prayer out of schools. There are too many weak-knee Christians. This is bigger than same-sex marriage. It is about changing society.”

Prince George’s County’s church community has been reflective of Maryland’s split on the issue, with preachers such as Thomas railing against same-sex marriage from the pulpit as busloads of churchgoers have traveled to Annapolis to speak out against something they believe tears at the fabric of the nation’s values.

... Those who oppose same-sex marriage in Maryland said their best hope of stopping it will be in the form of a statewide referendum, and in churches on Sunday preachers such as Thomas and the Rev. Joel Peebles, pastor of Jericho City of Praise, vowed to their church communities to push forward.

“This is really a wake-up call for the faith community,” said the Rev. Elwood Gray, pastor of the Peace in the Valley Baptist Church in Silver Spring.

A top adviser for President Obama’s campaign said Sunday he was unsure whether Democrats would run on a platform of same-sex marriage for the 2012 election.

Robert Gibbs, a former White House spokesman, said he had not talked to Obama yet about the possibility of bringing the issue of same-sex marriage rights into focus as a main issue leading up to November’s elections.

“I don't know the answer to that,” said Gibbs in an interview on ABC’s This Week. “I haven't talked to the president at all recently on this issue.

The same-sex marriage debate has exploded back onto the national stage in a matter of days, exposing sharp divisions within and between the parties while offering a muddy portrait of where Americans stand on the issue.

Same-sex marriage bills advanced toward the governor's desk in three states since last week, with different results.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, signed her state's bill into law Monday. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, vetoed his state's proposal Friday. The same day, the Maryland House of Delegates narrowly approved same-sex marriage legislation -- it is expected to pass the Senate, and would then be assured the signature of Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley.

The burst of activity is occurring exclusively in states with Democrat-controlled legislatures. But even in the two states with Democratic governors, opponents of same-sex marriage are vowing to fight the bills at the ballot box.

"The people of Maryland do not support same-sex marriage," National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown said in a statement late Friday, vowing to bring the issue to referendum if the state legalizes gay marriage. The Maryland bill already had been watered down, a political necessity given the fact the bill died in the House last year -- among the add-ons was a provision preventing the law from going into effect until litigation related to a referendum is processed.

Similar referendum efforts are afoot in Washington.