CAP: Marriage redefined, sexual liberty trumps religious liberty

In this issue:

(1) Marriage Redefined
(2) "Sexual Liberty" Trumps Religious Liberty?

(1) Marriage Redefined

The impact of the California Supreme Court decision redefining marriage is sending shockwaves through our country - and for good reason! Many citizens are unaware of the impact that this ruling in California WILL HAVE on states throughout America.
Here's one reason we are concerned: unlike Massachusetts, California does not have a residency requirement for couples wishing to marry in their state. We are less than 30 days away from an Arizona same-sex couple being able to "marry" in California, then return to Arizona to file a lawsuit challenging our state to recognize their California "marriage." CAP has already received reports of Arizona same-sex couples registering for gifts and making preparations for California weddings.
In the midst of this seemingly dark time, there is great news! Voters in Arizona, California, and Florida will likely have the chance this November to speak for themselves on the issue of marriage, instead of being told by judges what marriage is. In Arizona, this effort hinges on the state Senate passing SCR 1042 to refer the marriage amendment to the voters. If you have not yet contacted your Senator and Senate President Tim Bee to ask them to pass SCR 1042 and give the voters a chance to decide on marriage in November, please do so today and encourage your friends and family to do the same by visiting www.azpolicy.org.
The California decision highlights the urgency of passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage in Arizona as the union of one man and one woman. I encourage you to read CAP's opinion piece in today's Arizona Republic about the importance of the Arizona marriage amendment. Articles making the connection between the Arizona marriage amendment and the California decision also appeared in the Arizona Daily Star and the East Valley Tribune.


(2) "Sexual Liberty" Trumps Religious Liberty?

In court cases throughout our nation, we are seeing that "sexual liberty" is trumping religious liberty.
· In New Jersey, a church refused to rent its pavilion to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony because of the church's beliefs against homosexuality, and the state revoked the tax exemption on some of the church's land.
· In New Mexico, Christian photographers who refused to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony were fined for "discriminating" on the basis of sexual orientation.
· An Arizona-based adoption web site can no longer do business in California unless they are willing to place children with homosexual parents, and Catholic Charities had to stop placing children for adoption in Boston because the state prohibited them from exercising their religious beliefs that children should not be placed with same-sex couples.
· Two Christian doctors are facing a lawsuit in California for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian woman, even though the doctors referred her to another provider who successfully performed the procedure. This case has now been appealed to the California Supreme Court, and in light of last week's ruling, the outcome is uncertain at best.
The grave threat to religious freedom posed by these decisions is only worsened by court rulings like the California decision from last week. The stakes for protecting marriage are higher than ever.