Rick Santorum's appearance at Grosse Pointe High School in Michigan was canceled by the school's superintendent Dr. Thomas Harwood after Santorum refused to provide an advance copy of his speech, the Detroit News reports:
Harwood was told he could not preview the speech intended for more than 1,700 students during an assembly at the public high school and that Santorum never spoke before high school students, Fannon said.
Harwood met with Grosse Pointe High School principal Matt Outlaw and student Peter Fox, who was instrumental in getting Santorum to accept the invitation, and informed them of the decision, Fannon said. Parents were informed via email the same day, she said.
"The district just wanted to make sure the speech was focused on leadership. And when they were unwilling to review the speech, we couldn't allow them to come," Fannon said.
"As a public school system, we must be neutral, and we can't impose a position that is not neutral during a school activity during the school day," she said.
An outraged Santorum released a statement about the cancelation:
"It's a sad day when liberal educators are allowed to influence young minds - extending free speech rights only to those who share their liberal views. I support traditional marriage; I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. I'm not sure what the administrators in the Grosse Pointe Public School System are afraid of, but these students deserve the respect to form their own opinion on this important issue.
"Furthermore, anyone who has ever seen me speak knows I rarely use prepared text. In the case of Grosse Pointe High School - I was never asked for a copy of a speech, nor did I send one. This has nothing to do with the content of a speech, but rather the context of my convictions."
Old Spice gets fruity, AFTER THE JUMP...
You may recall Baronelle Stuzman, the Washington state florist who told a longtime customer that she would not do his wedding because of her relationship with Jesus.
She's now being sued by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the SeattlePI reports:
Ferguson said he sent a March 28 letter to owner Barronelle Stutzman asking her to reconsider and supply flowers to customer Robert Ingersoll. Through an attorney, Stutzman declined to change her position.
“As Attorney General, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington,” said Ferguson. “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers based on sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same sex couples the same product or service.”
The AG's office s asking that a $2,000 fine be imposed for every violation in a complaint filed in Benton County Superior Court.
NOM is already bleating: "Like clockwork, those who disagree with gay marriage are being fined and forced out of the public square -- by the state-imposed redefinition of marriage."
A new report released yesterday from the Church of England recommended gay couples in civil partnerships be able to receive blessings, the Telegraph reports:
The senior bishop who drafted the missive to priests insisted that it did not amount to a policy u-turn and that an official ban on formal "blessings" for civil partnerships remained in place. But he said it was clear there was a need for committed same-sex couples to be given recognition and “compassionate attention” from the Church, including special prayers.
The paper adds:
The report by the Church’s Faith and Order Commission, chaired by the Bishop of Coventry, the Rt Rev Christopher Cocksworth, a leading traditionalist, insisted that marriage should remain between a man and a woman and said that gay relationships fell short of God’s “ideal”.
But it also condemned “censorious judgment” and urged priests not to treat the issue of recognising civil partnerships as “simply closed”, urging them to approach the question on a case-by-case basis.
“In pastoral responses a degree of flexibility may be called for in finding ways to express the Church’s teaching practically,” it said.
The Oklahoma House yesterday voted 84-0 in favor of a resolution backing one man-one woman marriage but not before half of the chamber's 29 Democrats walked out instead of voting.
The resolution's sponsor State Rep. Bob Cleveland told KOCO: "There's been a few emails saying that I'm spewing hate. I didn't say anything about hate. There's no hate in there at all."
He can't understand why anybody might have walked out.
Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...
The AP adds:
Oklahoma state Rep. Kay Floyd of Oklahoma City, who is openly gay, walked out of the chamber when the vote was called, as did more than a dozen other Democrats. State Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, and 13 other Democrats voted for the resolution.
In a brief interview after the vote, Floyd said she walked out rather than vote on the resolution because when you vote "you give it credence, you give it some sort of credibility. So my statement was going to be that no, I'm not going to be a co-author. I'm not going to have anything to do with it."
RNC to Vote on Resolution Affirming 'One Man One Woman' Marriage and Urging Supreme Court to Do the Same
The Republican National Committee is set to convene tomorrow at the Loews Hollywood Hotel in L.A. for a 3-day spring meeting where they will discuss the party's direction and vote on several motions, one of which would reaffirm party opposition to same-sex marriage, reports Chris Moody at Yahoo's The Ticket:
At the meeting, a group of state party leaders is expected to submit a set of proposals to the RNC's Resolution Committee that aim to "re-affirm conservative principles." One in particular will take the temperature of the party's opposition to same-sex marriage. (The official Republican platform, which was approved at the national convention last August, calls for a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban same-sex marriage.)
According to the text of a marriage resolution, which was acquired by Yahoo News, the RNC panel will vote on a resolution stating, "[T]he 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."
While the result of the vote could reveal a headline-grabbing schism among party leaders over the issue, the same-sex marriage issue will likely not be the focal point of the conference.
The text of the resolution, via Yahoo! (click to enlarge):
Zack Ford at Think Progress notes that the six points the resolution attempts to make are backed up by citations from Mark Regnerus's politically-motivated junk science study on the inferiority of same-sex parenting or NOM's talking points.