End Times and Current Events

General Category => War On Family => Topic started by: Mark on November 25, 2012, 06:48:10 pm



Title: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on November 25, 2012, 06:48:10 pm
Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage

Timing will be at issue as the justices confer. In the past, the court has been faulted for waiting too long or moving too quickly on recognizing constitutional rights.

After two decades in which gay rights moved from the margin to capture the support of most Americans, the Supreme Court justices will go behind closed doors this week to decide whether now is the time to rule on whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

For justices, the issue is not just what to decide, but when to decide it. In times past, the court has been faulted for waiting too long or moving too quickly to recognize constitutional rights.

The justices did not strike down state bans on interracial marriage until 1967, 13 years after they had declared racial segregation unconstitutional. Yet in response to the growing women's rights movement, the court in 1973 struck down all the state laws restricting abortion, triggering a national "right to life" movement and drawing criticism even from some supporters that the Roe vs. Wade ruling had gone too far too fast.

Now, the justices must decide whether to hear an appeal from the defenders of California's Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman.

TIMELINE: Gay marriage through the years

At the same session Friday, the court will sift through several appeals to decide whether legally married gay couples have a right to equal benefits under federal law. Appeals courts in Boston and New York have struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies such a right, and the justices are almost certain to take up a case to resolve that question.

The Proposition 8 case, known as Hollingsworth vs. Perry, presents justices with the more profound "right to marry" question.

Opinion polls now show a majority of Americans favor marriage equality, and support for it has been growing about 4% per year. On Nov. 6, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved same-sex marriage, bringing the total to nine states.

Does the shift in public opinion suggest the court should uphold gay marriage now, or wait for more states, perhaps a majority, to legalize it?

Defenders of Proposition 8 say their case "raises the profoundly important question of whether the ancient and vital institution of marriage should be fundamentally redefined," and in this instance, by federal judges.

A federal judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 as discriminatory and irrational. In February, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that by a 2-1 vote, ruling the ban on gay marriage violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The majority relied heavily on a 1996 opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that had struck down an anti-gay initiative adopted by Colorado voters.

PHOTOS: 2016 presidential possibilities

The decision on whether to hear the case could be a hard call for both the court's conservatives and liberals.

Usually, the justices are inclined to vote to hear a case if they disagree with the lower court ruling. The most conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — almost certainly think the 9th Circuit's ruling was dubious. Scalia, for example, says the "equal protection" clause, added to the Constitution after the Civil War, aimed to stop racial discrimination and nothing more. He often insists the justices are not authorized to give a contemporary interpretation to phrases such as "equal protection."

If Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joins the other three, the conservatives would have the needed four votes to hear the Proposition 8 case.

They may hesitate. To form a majority, they would need Kennedy, the author of the court's two strongest gay rights rulings. His 2003 opinion struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law and said the state could not "demean" gays by treating them as second-class citizens. Five months later, the Massachusetts high court, citing Kennedy's opinion, became the first to rule that gays and lesbians had a right to marry.

If the court were to take up the Proposition 8 case, Kennedy, 76, would likely control the opinion.

"If you care about history and your legacy, that must be pretty tempting, to write the court's opinion that could be the Brown vs. Board of Education of the gay rights movement," said Michael J. Klarman, a Harvard legal historian, referring to the case that ordered school desegregation.

Still, the court's liberals also may hesitate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though a leading women's rights legal advocate, has said she thought the court made a mistake in the 1970s by moving too fast to declare a national right to abortion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-gay-marriage-20121125,0,511659.story



Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 25, 2012, 07:11:08 pm
Quote
If Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joins the other three, the conservatives would have the needed four votes to hear the Proposition 8 case.

Don't hold your breath b/c Roberts represented a pro-gay rights group as pro-bono to break down Colorado's anti-sodomy laws years ago.

Oh - Roberts also was the "swing vote" to uphold Obamacare - the Illuminati likely has alot of dirt on him to make him sway his vote. *hint hint*


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Mark on November 25, 2012, 07:50:07 pm
Don't hold your breath b/c Roberts represented a pro-gay rights group as pro-bono to break down Colorado's anti-sodomy laws years ago.

Oh - Roberts also was the "swing vote" to uphold Obamacare - the Illuminati likely has alot of dirt on him to make him sway his vote. *hint hint*

im not holding my breath, i fully expect it to pass and to become legal all across the land. These are the final days of America, heck its the final days of the world as we know it, the end is nigh and the Lords return and the rebirth of the world is at hand. Come Lord Jesus, come...


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Kilika on November 26, 2012, 02:49:09 am
That court is so tainted. It's become quite obvious the court has lost it's objectivity, if it ever really had any.

Indeed, this Obamacare thing will be implemented I think, as I see this as a step process of increasing measures to corner the public.

I've wondered over the eyars how the world cold actually manadate The Mark on an educated people so that the people aren't really aware what's going on, and the only thing I come up with is that it must be implemented slowly, incrementally, like boiling a frog, with various things that seem innocent enough by themselves.

It's like how do you get to tax the people at a rate of 50%? One percent at a time.

Scripture refers to the AC as coming in peacefully and that people will of course be deceived as to who he is, so they will initially want him around and whatever message he's spewing at the time that he claims is what the people want.

"And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries." Daniel 11:21 (KJB)


Title: In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 28, 2012, 04:27:02 pm
In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles


http://news.yahoo.com/u-fight-over-gay-marriage-both-sides-gearing-120406457.html;_ylt=An577rQl0TNW3VdXZUqWY11tzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTVxN2pnYTRqBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDNjgxMzBhZGItN2E4NC0zZjYyLWJhMjctNjA1OGQ1ZTJjMWQ1BHBvcwM2BHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzBjYTQ2NTQxLTM5NTUtMTFlMi05ZTdiLWM2MjBkNzk2YTMzMA--;_ylg=X3oDMTJtNTQyNXFkBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNGZkM2ZiYWUtNzgyMC0zNTAwLTg1NzctZDc2NTFiZDFmMWY3BHBzdGNhdAN1LXMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3
11/28/12
NEW YORK (Reuters) - After a watershed year for gay marriage in the United States that included ballot victories and a presidential endorsement, advocates have staked out a handful of states where they believe the next round of fights over same-sex unions can be won.

But any victories will not come easily.

Those who defend marriage as a union of one man and one woman plan to use the November 6 defeats as a rallying cry and fundraising tool. The National Organization for Marriage, the leading group opposed to gay marriage, has called on allies to raise $30 million in the coming year - more than double its haul in 2012.

"Frankly, Americans never really thought that they would have to defend something so obvious as the reality that it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage, and only recently has the threat become clear," Brian Brown, the organization's head, said in an interview.

"We're committed to not letting that happen again, to being outspent in that way. And I think a lot of our donors will step up to the plate, in a way that you haven't seen before, in any future state fights."

This Election Days, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state approved ballot initiatives legalizing same-sex marriage, marking the first time in U.S. history voters approved gay marriage at the polls, and bringing to nine the number of states allowing gay marriage.

Weeks later, both sides are preparing for more wrenching battles.

In Rhode Island, the last of the New England states where marriage is limited to straight couples, lawmakers are reviving a gay marriage bill that failed last year.

"From a strategic point of view, we feel very well positioned to capitalize on the momentum that's been generated over the past year," said Ray Sullivan, the campaign director for Marriage Equality Rhode Island.

A poll released in October by WPRI-TV in Rhode Island found 56 percent of voters support allowing same-sex marriage, while 36 oppose it and 8 percent are unsure.

In Minnesota, which on November 6 became the first state to reject a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, advocates say they now hope to build on voter enthusiasm, pushing lawmakers to take up a bill allowing gay marriage.

In Oregon, same-sex marriage advocates hope to put a pro-gay marriage referendum before voters in 2014. At the moment, Oregon is one of more than 30 states that have amended their constitution to limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

Advocates in Illinois and Hawaii, both of which currently allow same-sex unions, are also pushing for marriage votes.

And in New Jersey, where a gay marriage bill passed the legislature last year but was vetoed by Republican Governor Chris Christie, lawmakers say they plan to take up the issue again.

Loretta Weinberg, a Democratic New Jersey state senator, said the legislature is "within striking distance" of the needed two-thirds majority. But to give Republican supporters political cover against a conservative backlash, she said, it was unlikely the bill would be introduced before the state's June primary.

'WE ARE THE REBELS'

A decade ago, Americans opposed gay marriage by a margin of 57 to 35 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. But the stigma attached to homosexuality has faded and support for gay rights has surged, especially among young people.

Pew's latest survey, from July, found 48 percent of Americans approving of same-sex marriage and 44 percent opposing it. For two straight years, the Gallup Poll has found a slim majority of Americans believe same-sex couples should have the same right to wed as heterosexuals
.

This year, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to say he believed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The move was seen as energizing voters ahead of Obama's re-election against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, rather than as a liability.

"If nothing else, I think this election will prove that being for marriage isn't a liability, and it may actually help," said Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage.

"In 2004, if you took a pro-marriage position, the next morning 20 groups would be out to make sure you're defeated," added McTighe, whose organization led the successful campaign for same-sex marriage in the state.

Still, in many states the gay marriage fight remains an uphill battle. The National Organization for Marriage says its own polling has found well over half of American voters believe marriage should be defined as a union of one man and one woman.

But Brown acknowledges that defenders of so-called traditional marriage now find themselves on the defensive.

"All of the cultural power is being exerted on the side of redefining marriage," Brown said. "Therefore, in colleges, students are constantly hearing about how it's discrimination or bigoted to stand up for traditional marriage."

"We are the rebels now," he said.

(Editing by Paul Thomasch and Mohammad Zargham)



Title: Re: In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 28, 2012, 04:30:14 pm
Well, too bad these pro-family groups aren't preaching the gospel - pretty much it seems their agendas are MAN-CENTERED, alot like Alex Jones's "let's defeat the New World Order globalists" mentality.

Matthew 7:24  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Mat 7:26  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Mat 7:28  And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mat 7:29  For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


2Timothy 2:24  And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25  In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Ti 2:26  And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.


Title: Re: In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles
Post by: Kilika on November 28, 2012, 05:06:29 pm
Amen! God knows I need to heed that wisdom more! Thank God His strength is made perfect in our weakness.

Quote
2Timothy 2:24  And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

"And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.: 2 Corinthians 12:9 (KJB)


Title: Re: In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 30, 2012, 08:23:02 am
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-supreme-court-cases-weighed-205555503.html

11/30/12

Gay marriage before Supreme Court? Cases weighed

WASHINGTON (AP) — The running fight over gay marriage is shifting from the ballot box to the Supreme Court.

Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices are meeting Friday to decide whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.

The court could announce its plans as soon as Friday afternoon. Any cases probably would be argued in March, with a decision expected by the end of June.

more


Title: Re: In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 30, 2012, 11:36:55 am
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ballot-box-victories-gay-marriage-battle-heads-back-145856047.html

11/30/12
Supreme Court to consider gay marriage in the wake of ballot box breakthroughs

As the U.S. Supreme Court meets on Friday to consider whether to wade into the issue of gay marriage, the justices face a reality not even a month old: For the first time, voters have chosen to legalize same-sex nuptials.

The shift that took place on Election Day has energized gay marriage advocates, who believe the expressions of support for their cause in four states will influence the Supreme Court's decision making.

At a private conference on Friday, the justices will consider whether to hear several cases dealing with the rights of gay couples who are married, want to get married or are in domestic partnerships. They could announce as soon as Monday which, if any, of the cases they'll accept.

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 04, 2012, 07:02:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-passes-gay-marriage-cases-now-150713778.html

12/3/12

The Supreme Court remained quiet Monday on whether it will agree to hear any of the several cases dealing with same-sex marriage that are currently pending before the court.

Those cases include Proposition 8 in California, the ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriage even in states that allow it. The Supreme Court has put the cases on its discussion list for Friday, and an announcement could come then or on the following Monday.


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 06, 2012, 11:00:27 am
The major gay marriage cases facing the Supreme Court Friday

12/6/12

On Friday morning, the Supreme Court may announce whether it will hear two major cases that could have a sweeping impact on the definition of marriage in the United States and on same-sex couples' right to wed.

Ten cases dealing with gay marriage are pending before the court, but legal experts pinpoint two of them as the most likely for the court to consider.

The Defense of Marriage Act


The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, recently has been struck down by two federal appeals courts, which means the Supreme Court is all but obligated to take at least one of the cases to settle the dispute between Congress and the courts. The case thought most likely to be picked up by the justices is Windsor v. United States, which challenges DOMA, a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex married couples, even those in states that allow gay marriage.

The suit was brought by Edith Windsor, a resident of New York who paid $363,000 in estate taxes after her wife died because the federal government did not recognize their marriage. New York is one of nine states (and the District of Columbia) where gay marriage is legal, so Windsor argues that the federal government is discriminating against her by not recognizing her state-sanctioned marriage.

Doug NeJaime, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that equal protection under the law, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment, is the key issue at stake in this case. Windsor argues that by singling out same-sex marriages and treating them differently from other marriages, the federal government is in violation of their rights.  Since marriage has traditionally been regulated by the state, Windsor's lawyers say the federal government has no business interfering with New York's definition of marriage.

Windsor's attorneys are not arguing, however, that marriage is a fundamental right that all Americans are entitled to, no matter their sexual orientation. And few experts expect the Supreme Court to make such a sweeping decision.

If the justices do strike down DOMA, the decision will broadly affect gay couples who marry in states that recognize same-sex nuptials.  Most importantly, they would begin to qualify for the same federal marriage benefits other couples receive, including tax breaks and Social Security survivor benefits. And according to advocates, the decision would send an even larger message -- that all marriages are equal under the law.

As with other recent major cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy appears to be the swing vote. For DOMA to be overturned, Kennedy would have to join the court's four liberal justices to form a majority.

Kennedy has a libertarian streak that makes his votes unpredictable, as well as a legal record in favor of gay rights. In 2003, Kennedy wrote the Court's opinion in Lawrence v Texas, a landmark decision that said the government cannot outlaw sodomy since it's an intrusion into the private lives of gay people. Kennedy also cast the deciding vote striking down a Colorado law that would have prevented local governments from passing laws specifically protecting gay and lesbian civil rights.

Because of Kennedy's history on the issue, many legal experts think there's a good chance the court will strike down DOMA if it takes the case.

"I think that Justice Kennedy knows that he has the choice: Does he want to write the next Plessy v. Ferguson or does he want to write the next Brown v. Education," said Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, and a proponent of gay rights. The landmark Brown civil rights case overturned Plessy, which had endorsed "separate but equal" segregation in public schools.

"There's no doubt where the world is going on this issue," Chemerinsky said of same-sex marriage.

But John Eastman, chairman of the anti-gay marriage National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University, said it's still unclear how Kennedy will decide, despite his landmark opinion in Lawrence. "There's a pretty big difference between criminalizing conduct and redefining marriage," Chapman said, referring to the anti-sodomy laws Kennedy struck down. "He could draw the line there."

Proposition 8

Court watchers think the Supreme Court also will take up Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban. Voters passed Prop. 8 in 2008 months after the state's high court had legalized same sex unions and thousands of gay Californians had already tied the knot. Two federal courts have struck down Prop. 8 as discriminatory, leaving the Supreme Court to render a final judgment.

The lower courts' decisions made an overt appeal to Justice Kennedy by repeatedly citing his decision in the Colorado gay rights case. The lower court judges argued that by revoking marriage rights after they had already been granted, same-sex couples had been illegally singled out for discrimination.

If the Supreme Court agrees with that interpretation and decides to let the lower courts' rulings remain in place, gay couples in California--the nation's most populous state --would be able to get married legally within the month. But the decision would only apply to California. If the court does take up the case, the justices will decide by June whether to strike down or uphold the state's gay marriage ban.

The Prop. 8 case differs from the DOMA case in one key respect:  In Prop. 8, the pro-gay marriage side is arguing that marriage is a fundamental right that should not be denied to people based on their sexual orientation. That means the Supreme Court, in theory, could issue a sweeping decision on Prop. 8 that legalizes gay marriage throughout the country and invalidates state gay marriage bans.

Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, thinks that's unlikely. He says the justices will most likely wait for public opinion--which has just recently begun to swing in support of gay marriage--and state laws to coalesce around the issue before issuing a broad decision.

"The more this percolates, the easier it is to address this in the future," Stone said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/primer-major-gay-marriage-cases-pending-supreme-court-210914785--election.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Kilika on December 06, 2012, 02:10:47 pm
Quote
so Windsor argues that the federal government is discriminating against her by not recognizing her state-sanctioned marriage.

And THAT is the problem with many things. The federal officials snubbing their noses at state law. Same with medical cannabis. It's exactly what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are designed to prevent; federal tyranny.


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 07, 2012, 03:05:29 pm
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/07/15756101-us-supreme-court-to-take-up-same-sex-marriage-issue?lite

12/7/12

US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to take its first serious look at the issue of gay marriage, granting review of California's ban on same-sex marriage and of a federal law that defines marriage as only the legal union of a man and a woman.

At the very least, the court will look at this question: When states choose to permit the marriages of same-sex couples, can the federal government refuse to recognize their validity?  But by also taking up the California case, the court could get to the more fundamental question of whether the states must permit marriages by gay people in the first place.

The California case involves a challenge to Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by 52 percent of voters in 2008.  It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 couples were legally married earlier that year.

A federal judge declared the ban unconstitutional, and a federal appeals court upheld that ruling, though on narrower grounds that apply only to California.  Now that the Supreme Court is wading into the battle, the justices could decide the more basic issue of whether any state can ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law.  Or they could limit their ruling to apply only to the ban in California.

Nine states and the District of Columbia have moved to permit same-sex marriage or soon will -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington.

The Supreme Court also agreed Friday to hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton.  A provision of the law specifies that, for federal purposes, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Congress acted out of concern that a 1993 state court decision in Hawaii, which held that the state could not deny marriage licenses to same sex couples, might force other states to recognize gay marriage.  As it turned out, Hawaii did not adopt same-sex marriage.

Because of DOMA, gay couples who wed in the nine states where same-sex marriage is permitted are considered legally married only under state law.  The federal government is barred from recognizing their marriages.  As a result, they are denied over 1,000 federal benefits that are available to traditional couples.

After first supporting DOMA in court, the Obama administration concluded last year that it violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

"We cannot defend the federal government poking its nose into what states are doing and putting the thumb on the scale against same-sex couples," President Obama said in explaining the change.

Gay married couples in five states filed lawsuits challenging DOMA as an unconstitutional denial of their right to equal protection.  After the Obama Justice Department declined to defend the law, House Republicans stepped in to carry on the legal fight.

Defenders of DOMA argue that the law helps preserve traditional marriage.

"Unions of two men or two women are not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. And only marriage between a man and a woman can connect children to their mother and father and their parents to the children," says Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage.

A Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act would not, by itself, require states to allow same-sex marriages.  But the federal government would be required to recognize those marriages in the states where they are legal.

The cases will be argued before the justices in March, with a decision expected by late June.


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 20, 2012, 04:50:31 pm
http://www.inquisitr.com/448164/newt-gingrich-gay-marriage-is-inevitable-will-be-legal-soon/

Newt Gingrich: Gay Marriage Is Inevitable, Will Be Legal Soon

12/20/12

Newt Gingrich is OK with Gay Marriage.
 
Yes, the same Newt Gingrich who said that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was the result of godlessness in America, said today that marriage equality was inevitable and that he was OK with it. Yes, the same politician who signed a pledge earlier this year vowing to uphold the institution of marriage, believes that gay marriage will soon be legal across the country.

Gingrich told the Huffington Post:
 

“It is in every family … It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to … accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”
 
Gingrich said that he didn’t personal believe in gay marriage but said that gay couples should be able to have the same rights as straight couples. Gingrich said that the Catholic church may not recognize gay marriage anytime soon but that the federal government would.
 
Gingrich said:
 

“I didn’t think that was inevitable 10 or 15 years ago, when we passed the Defense of Marriage Act … It didn’t seem at the time to be anything like as big a wave of change as we are now seeing.”
 
Gay marriage was legalized in three more states this November and the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two gay marriage cases this Summer.
 
Do you agree with Newt Gingrich? Is the legalization of gay marriage inevitable?



Title: Obama Considers Weighing in on Gay Marriage Case
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 20, 2013, 08:05:29 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-considers-weighing-gay-marriage-case-221121846.html

2/20/13

The Obama administration is quietly considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage, a step that would mark a political victory for advocates of same-sex unions and a deepening commitment by President Barack Obama to rights for gay couples.

Obama raised expectations among opponents of the Proposition 8 ban when he declared in last month's inaugural address that gays and lesbians must be "treated like anyone else under the law." The administration has until Feb. 28 to intervene in the case by filing a "friend of the court" brief.

The Proposition 8 ballot initiative was approved by California voters in 2008 and overturned a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Twenty-nine other states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, while nine states and Washington, D.C., recognize same-sex marriage.

An administration brief alone is unlikely to sway the Justices but the federal government's opinion does carry weight with the court.

A final decision on whether to file a brief has not been made, a senior administration official said. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is consulting with the White House on the matter, said the official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to address the private deliberations publicly.

While the Justice Department would formally make the filing, the president himself is almost certain to make the ultimate decision on whether to file.

Obama has a complicated history on gay marriage. As a presidential candidate in 2008, he opposed the California ban but didn't endorse gay marriage. As he ran for re-election last year, he announced his personal support for same-sex marriage but said marriage was an issue that should be decided by the states, not the federal government.

To some, Obama's broad call for gay rights during his Jan. 21 inaugural address was a signal that he now sees a federal role in defining marriage.

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law," Obama said during his remarks on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. "For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

But administration officials said Obama — a former constitutional law professor — was not foreshadowing any legal action in his remarks and was simply restating his personal belief in the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

Seeking to capitalize on growing public support for gay marriage, advocates are calling on the administration to file a broad brief not only asking the court to declare California's ban unconstitutional but also urging the Justices to make all state bans illegal.

"If they do make that argument and the court accepts it, the ramifications could be very sweeping," said Richard Socarides, an attorney and advocate.

The administration could also file a narrower brief that would ask the court to issue a decision applying only to California. Or it could decide not to weigh in on the case at all.

The Supreme Court, which will take up the case on March 26, has several options for its eventual ruling. Among them:

— The justices could uphold the state ban on gay marriage and say citizens of a state have the right to make that call.

— The court could endorse an appeals court ruling that would make same-sex marriage legal in California but apply only to that state.

— The court could issue a broader ruling that would apply to California and seven other states: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. In those states, gay couples can join in civil unions that have all the benefits of marriage but cannot be married.

— The broadest ruling would be one that says the Constitution forbids states from banning same-sex unions.

For weeks, supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 have been lobbying the administration to side with them.

Last month, Theodore Olson and David Boies, lawyers arguing for gay marriage, met with Verrilli and other government lawyers to urge the administration to file a brief in the case. A few days later, Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, met with the solicitor general to ask the government to stay out of the case. Those kinds of meetings are typical in a high court case when the government is not a party and is not asked by the court to make its views known.

Boies and Chad Griffin, president of the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, also had a meeting at the White House on the case.

Ahead of next week's deadline, nearly two dozen states have filed briefs with the Supreme Court asking the Justices to uphold the California measure.

"There's a critical mass of states that have spoken out and believe states should continue to have the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman," said Jim Campbell, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents supporters of Proposition 8.

Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years. In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By November 2012, some 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.

Obama has overwhelming political support among those who support same-sex marriage. Exit polls from the November election showed that 49 percent of voters believed their states should legally recognize gay marriage. More than 70 percent of those voters backed Obama over Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

One day after the court hears the California case, the justices will hear arguments on another gay marriage case, this one involving provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. The act defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

The Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law in 2011 but continues to enforce it. Because DOMA is a federal law and the government is a party to the case, the administration does not have to state its opposition through a friend of the court brief.


Title: Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 21, 2013, 04:13:51 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couples-ask-high-court-marriage-equality-175514344--politics.html

2/21/13

Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gay and lesbian couples who are challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage said Thursday that the Constitution prohibits discrimination against them in the nation's largest state or anywhere else in America.
 
Prohibitions on gay marriage are enshrined in 30 state constitutions and in statutes in roughly 10 other states. "This badge of inferiority, separateness, and inequality must be extinguished," the two couples said in their legal brief filed with the Supreme Court.
 
But they also laid out several options in the court's consideration of California's Proposition 8 that stop short of declaring full marriage equality across the United States.
 
Gay marriage opponents are calling on the court to uphold the California provision by arguing that the justices should allow public and political debate over same-sex marriage to continue rather than impose a judicial solution. They also contend that states have a legitimate interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage and "responsible procreation and childrearing."
 
The justices will hear argument in the California case on March 26 and in a separate challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act's definition of marriage as between a man and a woman a day later.
 
Theodore Olson, the Republican lawyer who has embraced the issue of marriage equality, said he intends to ask for the broadest possible outcome when he argues to the court in March because gay men and lesbians are "denied the opportunity the rest of us have to get married and live in a family." Olson and Democratic lawyer David Boies have formed an unlikely partnership to represent the challengers to Proposition 8, approved by California voters in 2008 on the same day Barack Obama was elected president. The ballot initiative overturned a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage.
 
If the court were to adopt the gay couples' most far-reaching argument, same-sex marriage bans would fall in California and the 40 other states that do not allow gay couples to wed.
 
Among the other possible results:
 
—The justices could uphold the state ban on gay marriage and say citizens of a state have the right to make that call.
 
—The court could endorse an appeals court ruling that would make same-sex marriage legal in California but would apply only to that state.
 
—The court could issue a broader ruling that would apply to California and seven other states: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. In those states, gay couples can join in civil unions that have all the benefits of marriage but cannot be married.
 
—The case could essentially fizzle without a significant ruling by the justices. That would happen if they were to find that the private parties defending Prop 8 have no right to be in court.
 
Olson said the effect of the latter ruling would leave in place U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision that first declared the provision unconstitutional and would lead quickly to same-sex unions in California.
 
The biggest remaining question before the justices hear arguments next month is whether the Obama administration steps into the case on the side of gay marriage proponents and, if so, how forcefully it argues on their behalf. The administration faces a Thursday deadline at the high court.
 .


Title: Former GOP presidential candidate Huntsman backs gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 21, 2013, 07:27:43 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/former-gop-presidential-candidate-huntsman-backs-gay-marriage-230647570.html

2/21/13

Reuters) - Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman voiced support for gay marriage on Thursday, reversing his position and urging the Republican Party to be more supportive of gays and lesbians who want to marry.
 
Huntsman, a former U.S. ambassador to China and governor of Utah widely viewed as a moderate, made the announcement in an op-ed piece published online in The American Conservative magazine.
 
"I've been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life," he wrote. "There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love."
 
His comments appeared in an article titled "Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause."
 
"Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry," Huntsman wrote.
 
Nine of the 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage. Maryland was the most recent, with gay marriage becoming legal there on January 1.
 
Huntsman backed civil unions for gays and lesbians when he was governor of Utah. While he ran for the Republican presidential nomination, Huntsman told CNN, "I don't think you can redefine marriage from the traditional sense."
 
Huntsman abandoned his bid for the Republican nomination in January 2012 after his campaign failed to gain traction and he finished third in the New Hampshire primary.
 
(Reporting by Kevin Gray; Editing by Paul Thomasch and Andrew Hay)


Title: Re: Former GOP presidential candidate Huntsman backs gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 22, 2013, 04:05:26 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/jon-huntsman-gay-marriage_n_2734444.html

2/21/13

Jon Huntsman Backs Gay Marriage

Former 2012 Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman announced his support for gay marriage Thursday, culminating an evolution of public comments on the issue.

"Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry," Huntsman wrote in an op-ed in The American Conservative Thursday. "I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love."

He clarified that religions would not have to be forced to recognize gay marriages, but all Americans should be treated equally under the law.

Huntsman's support comes as many elected members of the Republican party decline to show support for gays and lesbians, despite the fact that more senior figures like former Vice President Dick Cheney and former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman -- who came out as gay after leaving the post -- support gay marriage. Neither the Log Cabin Republicans nor GOProud will participate in next month's Conservative Political Action Conference. There are no gay or lesbian Republicans in Congress, though there are several in state legislatures.

Huntsman, as Utah governor, favored civil unions for gays and lesbians, but stood against gay marriage. "I believe in traditional marriage,” he said while running for the GOP presidential primary. “I don’t think you can redefine marriage from the traditional sense.”

However, he refused to sign the National Organization for Marriage pledge that included a vow to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In a post-election interview with The Huffington Post, Huntsman took a more libertarian approach. "States ought to be entitled to do whatever they want," he said.

Huntsman has not shut the door on another bid for president in 2016.


Title: Re: Obama Considers Weighing in on Gay Marriage Case
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 23, 2013, 04:36:56 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-argue-gay-marriage-supreme-court-case-212413606.html

2/23/13

Obama administration to argue for gay marriage in Supreme Court case

The US Supreme Court next month hears arguments in a case challenging the 'Defense of Marriage Act.' In a brief filed Friday, the Obama administration asserts that DOMA discriminates against gay and lesbian couples in violation of the US Constitution.


The Obama administration has taken another important step in its advocacy of same-sex marriage, weighing in on an important case to be heard in the US Supreme Court next month.
 
The essence of the administration’s argument is that the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” violates the US Constitution in defining marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman – specifically Section 3 of DOMA, which bars recognition of same-sex marriages in the granting of federal benefits including Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, insurance benefits for government employees, and filing joint tax returns.
 
In the Justice Department brief filed with the Supreme Court Friday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli writes that DOMA’s Section 3 “targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society.”
 
“It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest,” Mr. Verrilli writes. “The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.”
 
The administration made it clear during the latter half of Mr. Obama’s first term that it would not continue to defend DOMA in the court cases where it’s been challenged. Taking up DOMA’s defense has been the “Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group” in the US House of Representatives, directed by Speaker John Boehner to take the place of the Justice Department in arguing court cases on behalf of the controversial law.
 
The House brief filed last month asserts that the same-sex marriage issue should be left to the democratic process and that gays are quite capable of pursuing their rights in those venues, according to a Politico analysis.

Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history,” the House brief says.
 
Homosexual conduct has a history of being prosecuted as criminal in the United States. And although same-sex marriages now are legally recognized in nine states and the District of Columbia, many more states still have laws aimed at gays and lesbians – including restrictions on the adoption of children, banning gay marriage, and refusing legal benefits to same-sex couples.
 
“Tradition, no matter how long established, cannot by itself justify a discriminatory law under equal protection principles,” the Solicitor General writes in his brief.
 
The Supreme Court next month also is scheduled to take up California’s Proposition 8, which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized” in the state. Both Prop. 8 and DOMA have been declared unconstitutional by lower courts.
 
It’s unclear whether the Obama administration will weigh in against Prop. 8 as it has with DOMA.
 
“Next week I think we will see the government urging the same standard of review be used to overturn Prop. 8, and with it, all anti-gay-marriage laws,” Richard Socarides, a gay rights advocate and White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, told Politico. “It’s clear from the administration’s DOMA brief that they understand and now embrace its connection to the Prop. 8 case. The discrimination evidenced by Prop. 8 itself is cited to support the standard of review urged by the government to strike down DOMA.”
 
The DOMA case involves Edith Windsor, who lived with her partner Thea Spyer for many years. They were married in 2007 in Canada, returning to their home in New York where their marriage was recognized by state law. But when Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor – because of DOMA – was forced to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes that the surviving spouse in a heterosexual marriage would not have to pay.
 
As he has said, President Obama’s position on gay marriage has “evolved” in its favor.
 
In his inaugural address last month, he said, “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."
 
Polls show a clear shift in public acceptance of same-sex marriage, especially among under-30 Americans – 63-35 percent approve, according to a Quinnipiac University poll in December. For all age groups, Gallup puts the number at 53-46 approval.


Title: Re: Former GOP presidential candidate Huntsman backs gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 25, 2013, 11:18:43 am
Yeah, I know this whole thing is a dog and pony show, but nonetheless you can see how the enemy has really infiltrated this country from within...as recent as 2004, this was completely unheard of...

http://news.yahoo.com/gops-uncomfortable-debate-over-gay-marriage-072008674--politics.html

The GOP's Uncomfortable Debate Over Gay Marriage

2/25/13

As Republicans rebound from the 2012 election and plot their future, an uncomfortable debate over gay rights is taking place.
 
Some party leaders are promoting a more inclusive approach to help the GOP modernize its image and reach across the generational divide. Polls show a narrow majority of Americans--and an overwhelming number of young people--think same-sex couples should have the right to marry. “The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history,” wrote former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman last week in declaring his support for gay marriage.
 
Yet even as Republicans are increasingly willing to consider more-moderate immigration policies to bridge the gap with the Hispanic community, accepting same-sex marriage is more complicated. Gay Republican groups say they are not welcome at next month’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, the largest gathering of conservative activists in the country. A coalition of gay activists had to pull footage of former first lady Laura Bush from an advertising campaign last week featuring prominent Republicans after she complained. When a leading GOP advocate of immigration reform, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, was asked recently about President Obama’s proposal to allow same-sex partners to be eligible for green cards, he sarcastically quipped, “Why don't we just put legalized abortion in there and round it all out?”
 
The marriage debate is expected to reach fever pitch next month when the Supreme Court hears opening arguments in challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 outlawing gay marriage. The massive publicity surrounding these court cases will make it difficult for Republican politicians who want to keep their distance from the debate while offering others a chance to proclaim the party's support for traditional marriage.
 
So far, there’s definitely been an absence of this issue being pushed in the media; there’s no antigay marriage drumbeat from the Republican Party,” said Gregory Angelo, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. “We’ll see what that leads to when there is all the chatter and press and advocacy around the Supreme Court decisions. The party is not in lockstep on this.”
 
National Journal’s Political Insiders survey last month found that nearly half of Republicans think the topic should be avoided. Nearly three out of 10 said they support same-sex marriage, while only 11 percent are opposed. That’s a big departure from 2009, when half of the Republican Insiders said the party should oppose gay marriage.
 
House Republicans took on DOMA’s defense in 2011 after the Obama administration said it was unconstitutional, and they recently increased their legal budget to $3 million. To the amused bewilderment of some gay activists, one of the key Republican arguments is that that gay Americans are so powerful that they don’t need special protections. Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history,”  says the legal brief quietly filed with the Supreme Court.
 
“Just a few years ago they would have held a news conference at high noon to announce it,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign. “We definitely see a concerted effort to tamp down the rhetoric.”
 
In Minnesota, GOP legislative leaders went so far to assure members of their caucus that they would not face reprisals if they supported a gay-marriage bill, and a Republican state senator is preparing to sponsor the legislation. Similar proposals have attracted bipartisan support in Wyoming and Rhode Island. In Iowa and Indiana, Republican bills to ban gay marriage have been put on the backburner.
 
None other than the chairman of the Illinois GOP threw his support behind a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, arguing that "giving gay and lesbian couples the freedom to get married honors the best conservative principles.” 
 
But when the bill cleared the state Senate on Valentine’s Day, only one Republican voted with the majority. The party chairman, Pat Brady, is fending off calls for his ouster, and more than 3,000 people rallied against the law at the state Capitol last week.
 
Gay marriage opponents warn of consequences if Republicans retreat from championing traditional marriage.
 
 “I don’t think that’s a constructive attitude to take because Republican officials cannot win without social conservatives,” said Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. “They are the core base of the Republican Party and the most active volunteers, and it would make no sense to turn their backs on them.”
 
Opponents of gay marriage are planning a “March for Marriage” in Washington, D.C., on March 26. The speaker’s lineup has not yet been released. “The fight for marriage is absolutely not over. It’s going strong,” said Thomas Peters, a spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage. “The idea that there’s a consensus on overthrowing marriage is absurd.”
 
Still, the momentum appears to be on the side of gay right supporters, who won four ballot initiatives in 2012 and are eying marriage equality laws in Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware and Hawaii. Efforts to repeal gay marriage bans are underway in Oregon, New Jersey and Ohio. Barack Obama became the first president to invoke gay rights in an inaugural speech last month.
 
In an effort to capitalize on these headwinds, a collecting of gay rights groups called the Respect for Marriage Coalition is running $1 million in television and print ads, though it had to replace the one with Laura Bush with a spot featuring a Republican Marine. Former Vice President **** Cheney and former Defense Secretary Colin Powell are also included in the campaign. “We really want to show there’s a majority of Americans behind gay marriage and it’s a bi-partisan majority,” said Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry.
 
Still, gay Republicans feel excluded from most conservative corners, including the high-profile CPAC conference last month that will showcase likely presidential contenders and other rising stars in the party. Angelo said the Log Cabin Republicans have asked to participate in the past but didn’t this year because it prefers to “choose its battles.” Another gay group, GOProud, was barred from last year’s event after some social conservatives boycotted.
 
If people are concerned about the future of the conservative movement, they know we need to broaden our appeal,” said the group’s executive director Jimmy LaSalvia.  “They need to deal with the political reality of this issue, and beating the drum against gay marriage is a political loser.”


Title: Re: Former GOP presidential candidate Huntsman backs gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 25, 2013, 11:27:53 am
^^

As you can see, it's not only the Liberalism/Hollywood/Ellen Degenerous crowd that's leading the charge - now the enemy is coming from WITHIN. What's next? The "conservative" Southern Baptist Convention will have their own separate groups of "gay Southern Baptists", and they'll be rising against the SBC demanding their rights?

2Th 2:1  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


Luk 17:28  Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luk 17:29  But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.


Eph 6:10  Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Eph 6:11  Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Eph 6:18  Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Eph 6:19  And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
Eph 6:20  For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.


Title: 'Once inconceivable': Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 26, 2013, 12:15:49 pm
'Once inconceivable': Republican leaders sign pro-gay marriage brief

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/26/17102594-once-inconceivable-republican-leaders-sign-pro-gay-marriage-brief?lite

2/26/13

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope for a boost this week when dozens of high-profile Republicans, many no longer in office, submit their legal argument to the Supreme Court on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed, bucking their party platform.

In a move described by one scholar as “inconceivable” just two years ago, 75 Republicans have signed the brief to be filed in the case of Proposition 8, a California law banning same-sex marriage, The New York Times reported. The nation’s high court will hear arguments on the law in late March.

Four former governors, including Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, and members of President George W. Bush’s cabinet, such as former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, signed the brief, the Times reported. Some of those, such as Meg Whitman, who ran for California governor in 2010, had once opposed same-sex marriage.

The brief will be filed Thursday, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor and author of “From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage,” called it an “incredibly important development” and noted the brief could influence Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom he said was the swing vote on gay marriage.

The fact that more and more Republicans are coming out in favor of gay marriage simply confirms how dramatic the shift in public opinion has been -- and that is a fact that likely is of great significance to Justice Kennedy,” he wrote to NBC News in an email. Even two years ago, it would have been inconceivable that this many prominent Republicans would have been willing to buck their party platform on the issue.”

One of those who signed the brief was former Utah governor and Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman. In an article last week, Huntsman wrote that as governor he had backed civil unions but now was supporting marriage for gays and lesbians.

“The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans,” he wrote. “This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.”

Huntsman’s argument echoed parts of the legal brief, which the Times said made the case that allowing same-sex marriage would promote conservative ideals of limited government and individual freedom as well as provide the children of gay couples a two-parent home.

1Tim 6:10  For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1Ti 6:11  But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.


The legal brief was dismissed by the National Organization for Marriage, which on Monday pledged $500,000 to defeat Republican lawmakers supporting any law to allow same-sex marriage in Minnesota, a state considering such legislation.

“None of these people are actively in politics. They are not running for office because they know … supporting same-sex marriage will end your career if you’re a Republican,” he said. “There’s overwhelming support for traditional marriage in the Republican Party, that’s why it’s part of the party platform, and any attempt by the establishment to redefine marriage and redefine what it means to be a conservative will mean the death of the Republican party.”

But LGBT groups said the brief was further proof of changing attitudes on the issue.

“As opposition to the freedom to marry becomes increasingly isolated and the exclusion from marriage increasingly indefensible, Americans all across the political spectrum are saying it's time to end marriage discrimination, do right by families, and get our country on the right side of history," Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, said in a statement.

The Supreme Court will also hear arguments in late March on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The Obama administration has encouraged the justices to strike it down. In its argument, the federal government noted Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states was evidence that anti-gay discrimination remained a major problem.


Title: Some companies to back gay marriage in coming Supreme Court cases
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 26, 2013, 05:22:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/companies-back-gay-marriage-coming-supreme-court-cases-222647601--sector.html

2/26/13

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some U.S. business interests intend to signal support for gay marriage by signing on to two briefs due to be filed this week with the Supreme Court, according to lawyers involved in the process who argue that gay rights are good for business.
 
Various companies are set to join separate friend-of-the-court briefs, one expected on Wednesday in a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act and one due on Thursday in a case that questions a California law that banned gay marriage.
 
Major companies are to urge the court to invalidate Proposition 8, the California law in question, and strike down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
 
The brief to be filed in the Proposition 8 case, a draft of which was obtained by Reuters, has been joined by such companies as Apple Inc, Nike Inc, Facebook Inc, Morgan Stanley, Intel Corp, Xerox Corp, AIG Inc and Cisco Systems Inc.
 
The two cases are to be argued on March 26 and 27.
 
In briefs already filed in support of marriage being restricted to heterosexual unions, business interests have not been represented. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not taken a position on the issue.
 
Lawyers at the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm, which is handling the Proposition 8 brief, said more names could be added to the list before it is filed on Thursday.
 
In the DOMA case, a source close to the case said a similar brief with more than 250 signatories is due to be filed with the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
 
In the Proposition 8 brief, attorney Joshua Rosenkranz wrote that companies believe that the ban and other laws like it "inflict real and wholly unnecessary injury on business."
 
"By marginalizing same-sex couples and foreclosing gay men and lesbians from forming 'married' families, these bans on equal access to marriage stigmatize gay men and lesbians and deprive them of the benefits intrinsic to marriage," he added.
 
Even if a corporation welcomes gay and lesbian unions, "it cannot overcome the societal stigma institutionalized by Proposition 8 and similar laws," Rosenkranz wrote.
 
He also made the argument that there is "a strong business case" for recognizing same-sex marriage. Gay marriage bans "can impede business efforts to recruit, hire and retain the best workers," he added.
 
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Cynthia Osterman)


Title: Big push to support gay marriage at high court
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 26, 2013, 07:22:44 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/big-push-support-gay-marriage-high-court-225647652.html

2/26/13

WASHINGTON (AP) — Prominent Republicans, retired military leaders and U.S. businesses are among the factions ready to ask the Supreme Court to support marriage equality in two cases up for argument next month.
 
The effort is being coordinated by gay rights groups and is designed to show the justices the rapid and widespread evolution of views about same-sex marriage, now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia. Religious leaders, labor groups and gay people who live in states that prohibit them from marrying are also weighing in.
 
The justices will hear the dispute over California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on March 26, followed a day later by a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act provision that denies legally married gay couples a range of federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples.
 
Mary Bonauto, the director of the Civil Rights Project at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders who is coordinating legal briefs that are due at the court later this week, said that the military, business, labor and other filings will have a "truth-telling function" about the reality of life for gays and lesbians, and they will share a common theme. "Gay and lesbian families and their children are here to stay," Bonauto said.
 
Businesses who already have signed onto the brief in the California case include Apple, eBay, Facebook, Intel, Morgan Stanley, Nike and Xerox. "We file this brief to add more voices to the growing chorus that Proposition 8, and similar laws barring equal access to marriage for same-sex couples, are unconstitutional and should be invalidated," the companies say, according to a draft of the brief provided by the Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm. California is among 30 states with constitutional provisions that prohibit same-sex marriage, Roughly 10 others do so by statute.
 
A much larger group of companies is expected to support overturning the Defense of Marriage Act measure.
 
Ken Mehlman, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who came out as gay in 2010, has worked over several months to compile a list of Republicans willing to step forward in support of gay marriage.
 
"This brief in some ways is a microcosm of what's happening all over the country, across political parties as people examine their core beliefs and values," Mehlman said. He is on the board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is spearheading the lawsuit against Proposition 8.
 
Among the Republicans joining in support of gay marriage are former presidential candidates Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson, former governors Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift and William Weld of Massachusetts and 2010 nominee for California governor Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 in her campaign. Also on the list are two members of Congress who voted for the federal law in 1996, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and former Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio.
 
**Gary Johnson was heavily promoted by Alex Jones and the "truth" movement during the 2012 election.

The group says the court's intervention is most needed now, when "discriminatory laws appear to reflect unexamined, unfounded, or unwarranted assumptions rather than facts and evidence, and the rights of one group of citizens hangs in the balance."
 
Another filing expected in the next few days is called the Red States brief, representing gays and lesbians from Utah and 19 other states that prohibit same-sex marriage, Bonauto said. The primary point of that brief is to show "this is what life is like for us in these states," she said.
 
The filings, called friend-of-the-court briefs, generally complement the main legal arguments being advanced by the parties in a case.
 
On Tuesday, Edith Windsor, the New York woman suing over the federal marriage law, told the court that there is no good reason to treat married gay couples differently from all other married couples.
 
Windsor is seeking a refund of $363,000 she had to pay in estate taxes after her longtime partner Thea Spyer died in 2009. If Windsor had been married to a man, her tax bill would have been $0.
 
Her legal argument and those advanced by the Obama administration and the same-sex couples suing in California ask the court to give more rigorous scrutiny to the federal law and Proposition 8 than courts ordinarily apply to most laws. They say the stricter review is appropriate when governments discriminate against a group of people, as is the case for claims that laws discriminate on the basis of race, sex and other factors.
 
The Supreme Court has never given gay Americans the special protection it has afforded women and minorities. If it endorses such an approach in the gay marriage cases, same-sex marriage bans around the country could be imperiled.


Title: Clint Eastwood Joins Republicans for Gay Marriage, Highlighting Growing GOP Rift
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 28, 2013, 05:25:24 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/clint-eastwood-joins-republicans-gay-marriage-highlighting-growing-204212840.html

2/28/13

Clint Eastwood Joins Republicans for Gay Marriage, Highlighting Growing GOP Rift

A growing split in the Republican Party deepened today when Clint Eastwood, the movie star who rocked the GOP convention by interviewing an invisible President Obama, joined the ranks of Republicans who are in favor of legalizing gay marriage.
 
The support for gay marriage by Eastwood and about 100 prominent Republicans, along with budding support within the party for immigration reform, is creating an obvious divide in the party. It pits moderate Republicans and party operatives on one side against conservative activists who drive turnout in the primary elections.
 
One of the four former Republican governors who signed the legal brief in favor of same sex marriage is ex-New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman who she says there are days she "absolutely" doesn't feel like part of the party because she says the GOP is being "defined by the talking heads and they don't for the most part represent me."
 
Another Republican who is taking on some conservative elements in the party is Carlos Gutierrez, the former commerce secretary under George W. Bush. Gutierrez announced last week he is forming a new super PAC "Republicans for Immigration Reform."
 
Gutierrez says there are House members who "understand we have to fix the problem" of immigration, but "the concern is they get primaried or have a primary challenger from the right who throws out the word amnesty, which is so easy to do."
 
"We will be very involved in the primary process for the House to give members cover…If they have a rival from the right screaming amnesty or a primary challenger from the right screaming amnesty, those are the people we want to cover, we want to support and if that means going after the challenger that is screaming amnesty we will do that," Gutierrez told ABC News.
 
Gutierrez says Mitt Romney's comments during the Republican primary that undocumented aliens should "self-deport" clearly hurt him and he was questioned about it well into the general election. When asked if the primary system, which is dominated by grassroots conservatives, is broken Gutierrez said yes calling it a "crazy system."
 
"To think in this day and age in 24 hour media coverage you can run and say far right policies and then for the national election sneak back in the center and nobody notices, you can't do that," Gutierrez said.
 


Clint Eastwood Joins Republicans for Gay Marriage
 
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a possible presidential contender four years from now, also said today the GOP needs to change the way it appeals to Hispanic voters.
 
"We cannot expect to get support from the Latino community if we don't make the Latino community feel welcome and important in our party," Christie said while accepting the endorsement of a group of Latino leaders, according to the Newark Star Ledger. "Everyone here in the Latino community, a community that is steeped in faith, understands that our faith in the country comes from the power of the individual to be able to pursue their faith openly, vigorously, and in a way they believe helps to build and strengthen their families."
 
Christie added: "Now with all those agreements why is it that over 70 percent of the Latino community in the last national election voted for the other party?"
 
The New Jersey governor is a glaring example of litmus test conservatism when it was revealed this week that he is not being invited to the Conservative Political Action Conference, a confab of conservative activists next month.
 
Christie is one of the most popular governors in the country and widely thought to be eyeing the 2016 presidential race. But he has angered conservatives after he blasted House Speaker John Boehner for adjourning the House without approving a $60 billion relief package for the victims of superstorm Sandy.
 
Christie also angered some Republicans when just one week before the presidential election he praised President Obama's handling of the storm, which slammed into his state on Oct. 29.
 
Whitman, one of the four former Republican governors who signed the legal brief in favor of same sex marriage, said she was "blown away by those who criticized [Christie] so severely for embracing the president."
 
"He did what you elect a governor to do. He was not acting like a politician," Whitman said.
 
Whitman said the problem with moderates in the party's tug-of-war is "they tend to be more moderate."
 
"We have a responsibility to not allow ourselves to be drowned out," Whitman said. "Let them know when senators and those in Congress work across the aisle or Chris Christie stands up…(that) this is what we want. This is what we expect of our elected leaders."
 
Whitman said she signed the gay marriage brief because it's important to be heard and it's an opportunity to get this issue behind us."
 
"We are talking about family values, we are talking about commitment that so many people hold in such high regard it shouldn't make a difference if it's between a man and a woman or two men or two women," Whitman said. "We are the party of family values and limited government. Getting out of the bedroom is a good first step."
 
Whitman, who is also the former administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, said the purist conservatives are statistically a smaller number of people in the party, but are the loudest because of their role in the party's primaries where voter turnout can be very low.
 
"It allows the most partisan people the first say in who your choices…and because they are the most partisan they are going to choose the most partisan people," Whitman said. "They have influence beyond their numbers."
 
Margaret Hoover, a GOP strategist and former George W. Bush staffer who signed the brief, agrees with Whitman, but said she always feels like a member of the party because she is "totally committed to changing it."
 
"You can leave or you can change it and frankly we are having a lot of success changing it," Hoover said. "We are making it truer to our principals and we are calling out the people who claim to be for individual freedom."
 
Hoover said she thinks the people "gearing up for civil war" are the "social conservatives who insist on purity tests," but there are "other elements of the party that are quickly trying to tamp that down and pivoting to, 'No we are going to be the party of the big tent.' We are going to get back to being a big tent party on social issues. We will be strict on fiscal issues."
 
"It's fair to say that increasingly behind the scenes Republicans are saying we have to be a big tent on social issues. Social conservative activists are going to hate that, (American Conservative Union president) Al Cardenas is going to hate that and his people are going to hate that, but that's not the reality," Hoover said.


Title: Poll shows 61 percent of Californians back gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 28, 2013, 09:30:24 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-shows-61-percent-californians-back-gay-marriage-004039448.html

2/28/13 Poll shows 61 percent of Californians back gay marriage

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California voters favor same-sex marriage by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a poll showed on Thursday, a month before the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over a gay marriage ban approved by the state's residents in 2008.
 
The Field Poll found 61 percent of surveyed voters in California believe gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed, the highest level of support the organization has ever found on that question in the state.
 
The findings represent a shift in public opinion on the matter since November 2008, when 52 percent of voters in California approved Proposition 8 to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Leading up to that vote, polls had shown the public narrowly divided on the question.
 
Defenders of Proposition 8 discounted the random survey.
 
"Californians voted for (traditional) marriage twice in the only polls that really matter," said Jim Campbell, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents opponents of gay marriage in the case that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, cited the Obama administration's filing of a brief on Thursday urging the Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages to resume in California as further evidence of the momentum in favor of accepting gays and lesbians.
 
Some 18,000 same-sex couples exchanged vows before California voters approved the gay marriage ban in 2008.
 
Since then, polls have shown same-sex marriage steadily gaining support among Californians and Americans. Nine states and the District of Columbia allow gays and lesbians to marry. Last year Maine, Washington state and Maryland became the first states to approve it at the ballot box.
 
Age appeared to be the biggest factor turning the tide in favor of same-sex marriage in California. The Field Poll showed 78 percent of voters age 39 and under favored gay marriage, compared to only 48 percent support among voters 65 or older.
 
The Field Poll was completed between February 5 and February 17 and involved telephone interviews with 834 registered voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.
 
Same-sex couples sought to overturn Proposition 8 with a federal lawsuit, leading to decisions in their favor at the district and appeals court levels. Backers of the ballot measure last year appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.
 
Kendell said she believes the expensive and emotional legal fight heading to the nation's highest court contributed to voter support for same-sex marriage.
 
"The Proposition 8 challenge was a huge educational vehicle," she said. "The (district court) trial magnificently exposed how ridiculous the arguments against same-sex marriage were."
 
(Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis, Cynthia Johnston and Martin Golan)


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Kilika on March 01, 2013, 02:41:25 am
Quote
2/28/13 Poll shows 61 percent of Californians back gay marriage

Well, sounds about right, seeing about half of California is gay! ::)


Title: Re: Supreme Court decides this week whether to rule on gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 01, 2013, 08:05:47 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/justice-kennedy-could-disappoint-lot-004200244.html

3/1/13

Justice Kennedy Could Disappoint A Lot Of People On His Gay Marriage Vote

The Supreme Court will decide the fate of gay marriage in just a few weeks. Many pro-gay marriage people are counting on Anthony Kennedy's vote, but they might not actually get it.
 
Kennedy, who's notoriously volatile, will likely be the high court's swing vote for the gay marriage cases, one of which seeks to overturn the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.
 
The other case before the court involves a challenge to Proposition 8, a voter-approved law that banned gay marriage in California.
 
Gay rights activists are counting on Kennedy's support because he wrote two landmark opinions on gay rights, including one striking down Texas' sodomy law.
 
The judge who initially struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional even cited Kennedy's pro-gay opinions 15 times to bolster his argument for marriage equality.
 
But Kennedy's previous pro-gay opinions don't necessarily reveal how he'll vote in the two cases before the court now, UCLA Law professor Adam Winkler told Business Insider.
 
Neither pro-gay ruling he wrote involved marriage, and neither would have affected the lion's share of the United States as a decision for gay marriage would.
 
In Lawrence v. Texas, Kennedy struck down sodomy laws in Texas and 13 other states. His other major pro-gay decision struck down a Colorado law that barred its cities from passing their own laws that protected gays against discrimination.
 
A "bold ruling" saying there's a constitutional right to gay marriage would strike down the laws in 30 states that have already amended their constitutions to forbid gay marriage, Winkler says.
 
Kennedy has historically favored states' rights, and he might not issue a decision that would trample on the will of so many states at once.
 
"I think there are many people in the gay rights community who are fearful that Kennedy is not prepared to say that gay marriage is a constitutional right," Winkler said.


Title: The Hype: NFL must fight "homophobia"
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 02, 2013, 11:55:45 am
The Hype: NFL must fight homophobia

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-yahoo-sports/hype-nfl-must-fight-homophobia-220434657.html

3/1/13
NFL Players Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo are fighting for gay marriage rights in California. The Crossover crew believes it’s time for the NFL to take more action against homophobia in hopes of welcoming an openly gay player.

Video inside link


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 02, 2013, 08:13:24 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/clint-eastwood-gay-marriage-political-tipping-point-conservatives-223200638.html

Clint Eastwood and gay marriage: Political tipping point for conservatives?

Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood has joined a large group of Republicans arguing for same-sex marriage in the US Supreme Court. Prominent conservatives and many of the largest US corporations now favor gay marriage as well.


3/2/13

Movie icon Clint Eastwood – who famously mocked Barack Obama at the Republican convention last summer – has joined the President in supporting same-sex marriage.
 
No, Mr. Eastwood – he of that empty chair used as a prop in Tampa, Fla. – has not shucked his generally conservative ways. But he has joined with more than 100 other conservatives and Republicans who recently came out for gay marriage, among them former governors, GOP administration senior officials, and prominent right-leaning pundits.
 
In fact, as Mike Flynn at Breitbart.com pointed out in first reporting Eastwood’s move, the actor and Oscar-winning director is as much a political libertarian as anything else.

But the news does indicate an important shift among conservatives on this hot-button social issue, particularly among younger voters for whom same-sex marriage is no big deal – a political demographic the GOP badly needs to woo. Or as the Pew Research Center puts it, “Millennials are almost twice as likely as the Silent Generation to support same-sex marriage.”
 
And if nothing else, it may signal a tipping point in public attitudes just as the US Supreme Court is about to decide two critical cases: the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Prop. 8 banning gay marriage.
 
Polls indicate that the country is “evolving” on the issue at least as rapidly as Obama last year said he was. In California, a new Field Poll has California voters approving of same-sex marriage by a margin of nearly two-to-one (61-32 percent).
 
This represents a complete reversal in views about the issue from 1977, when The Field Poll conducted its first survey on this topic, and is the highest level of support ever measured by the poll,” the organization reported this week. “Approval of allowing marriage between two people of the same gender includes majorities of men and women, voters in all racial and ethnic groups, and Californians living in each of the major regions of the state. The only subgroups where majorities remain opposed are registered Republicans and voters who classify themselves as conservative in politics.”

The Republicans who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the DOMA case before the Supreme Court examined their deeply-held convictions about the basis for marriage. In the end, they concluded, “There is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples,” and they found that “marriage is strengthened, not undermined, and its benefits and importance to society as well as the support and stability it gives to children and families promoted, not undercut, by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples.”
 
One of those who signed on to the brief was David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush.
 
“As a conservative concerned with stabilizing families to rely less on government aid, I have been convinced: I've been worrying about the wrong thing,” he wrote this week on the Daily Beast. “Stopping same-sex marriages does nothing to support families battered by economic adversity. Instead, it excludes and punishes people who seek only to live as conservatives would urge them to live. Treating same-sex partnerships differently from husband-wife marriages only serves to divide and antagonize those who ought to be working together.”
 
Other elements of US society have weighed in similarly.
 
In their legal brief regarding DOMA, a group of some 200 businesses and government entities said the federal law “puts us, as employers, to unnecessary cost and administrative complexity” while also “[forcing] us to treat one class of our lawfully married employees differently than another, when our success depends upon the welfare and morale of all employees.”
 
The group includes such corporate giants as Amazon, Apple, Cisco Systems, eBay, Ernst & Young, Goldman Sachs, Google, Levi Strauss, Marriott International, McGraw-Hill, and Microsoft.
 
In a New York Times op-ed column last year, Institute for American Values founder David Blankenhorn (who had supported Prop 8’s ban on gay marriage) explained his change in view.
 
“As a marriage advocate, the time has come for me to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do,” he wrote. “Instead of fighting gay marriage, I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 02, 2013, 08:19:48 pm
Mat 13:3  And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
Mat 13:4  And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
Mat 13:5  Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
Mat 13:6  And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away
.
Mat 13:7  And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
Mat 13:8  But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.


Mat 13:18  Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
Mat 13:19  When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
Mat 13:20  But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
Mat 13:21  Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: tennis shoe on March 02, 2013, 11:18:24 pm
So the Supreme Court will hear this trash but refuse to hear a case that has evidence of the current sitting President using an admittedly forged birth certificate, fake social security number, and forged selective service registration.

Guess that’s just not important. Oh, snap! He has the authority to nominate them into the court. That explains it. Justice? Not on this earth.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Mark on March 04, 2013, 11:38:38 am
DOJ: Children Do Not Need—and Have No Right to--Mothers

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

“The [California] Voter Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: 'the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,’” said the administration’s brief submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

“As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,” the Department of Justice told the court. “To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological, and social-welfare organizations have issued policy statements opposing restrictions on gay and lesbian parenting based on their conclusion, supported by numerous scientific studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”

“The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents,” says the administration.

To support this argument, one of the documents the administration cites is a “policy statement” by the American Psychological Association. This statement claims that some studies indicate same-sex parents might be “superior” to mother-and-father families, but then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in two-father households.

“Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners,” says this APA policy statement the administration cited to the court. “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

“Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents,” says the APA policy statement. “However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers.”

The Obama administration further argues that because California law already permits domestic partnerships in which same-sex couples are allowed all the "incidents” of marriage--including the right to adopt children and be foster parents--that Proposition 8 only denies same-sex couples the use of the word "marriage" and does not change the status of child-rearing in the state.

“Moreover, as the court of appeals determined, ‘Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California,’” says the administration. “As explained, California law, both before and after Proposition 8, grants registered domestic partners the same parental rights and benefits accorded to married couples. And Proposition 8 does not alter California’s adoption, fostering, or presumed-parentage laws, which 'continue to apply equally to same-sex couples.’

“In light of California’s conferral of full rights of parenting and child-rearing on same-sex couples, Proposition 8’s denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry bears no cognizable relation, let alone a substantial one, to any interest in responsible procreation and child-rearing (however defined),” says the administration. “Indeed, because a substantial number of California children are raised in households headed by same-sex couples.”

In effect, the administration is arguing that California had already conceded the administration’s point that children do not need a mother or a father when it enacted laws treating same-sex couples the same as married couples in its adoption, foster-parenting and other laws--which Proposition 8 did not seek to overturn.

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defenisble interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

The brief that the Justice Department presented to the Supreme Court discussed children only as items controlled by others, not as individual human beings who have God-given rights of their own. It simply assumes that a child has no inherent right to a mother or father and that the only right truly in question is whether two people of the same-sex have a right to marry one another and that that right encompasses a right to adopt and foster-raise children.

To take this view and be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence—which recognizes the ultimate authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and says that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”—the Obama Justice Department must advance the assumption that natural law and Nature’s God give children no right to a mother and father and no right not to be legally handed over by the government to be raised by same-sex couples.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-children-do-not-need-and-have-no-right-mothers


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 04, 2013, 08:43:19 pm
So the Supreme Court will hear this trash but refuse to hear a case that has evidence of the current sitting President using an admittedly forged birth certificate, fake social security number, and forged selective service registration.

Guess that’s just not important. Oh, snap! He has the authority to nominate them into the court. That explains it. Justice? Not on this earth.

And not to mention too all of the Hegelian Dialect dog-and-pony-show theatrics going on - there was an article the other day over why Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to strike down the various states's anti-sodomy laws in 2003...b/c supposedly he favored states rights.

So..."conservative", anti-abortion Justices Clarence Thomas and A. Scalia are anti-states rights b/c they voted against striking it down? While "liberal", pro-abortion Justices Ruth Ginsberg and John Stevens are pro-states rights b/c they voted for striking it down? And for that matter too, wasn't Kennedy appointed by "Christian Freedom Fighter" Ronald Reagan?

You see the level of stupidity this Hegelian Dialect dog-and-pony-show threatrics have become?


Title: No immediate ruling on Michigan's gay marriage ban
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 07, 2013, 11:32:53 am
http://news.yahoo.com/no-immediate-ruling-michigans-gay-marriage-ban-163106011.html

3/7/13
DETROIT (AP) — A judge said Thursday that a lesbian couple seeking to jointly adopt children made a "compelling" case Michigan's gay marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution, but he wants to wait for guidance from the Supreme Court before deciding whether to throw it out.
 
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman heard arguments from the two Detroit-area nurses who filed a lawsuit last year attacking a Michigan law that prohibits them from jointly adopting children because they're not married. At Friedman's suggestion, they expanded their challenge to the gay marriage ban approved by 58 percent of Michigan voters in 2004.
 
But Friedman said he would benefit from seeing how the U.S. Supreme Court handles cases involving a gay marriage ban in California as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Arguments are scheduled later this month in Washington.
 
An immediate ruling in Michigan "would not be fair to either side," Friedman said while holding court in front of students at Wayne State University law school.

more


Title: Gay marriage ruling may rival Roe v. Wade in turmoil
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 11, 2013, 01:56:44 am
3/10/13
The issue of gay marriage is hurtling toward a Supreme Court date this month, and activists on both sides are fearing — or hoping for — another Roe v. Wade-type decision.
 
The 1973 Roe decision — which the justices hoped would settle the legal question on abortion once and for all — instead spawned a political and cultural clash that is still raging. Many traditional-values advocates are predicting a similar divisive scenario if the high court overrides laws approved by legislatures and voters in dozens of states defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
 
If the Supreme Court “mandates genderless marriage, the resulting social divisions and political contentions will probably equal — and may surpass — those resulting from Roe v. Wade,” Nevada lawyer Monte Stewart and the Coalition for Marriage said in a friend-of-the-court brief in support of California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), both of which take a stand against same-sex marriage.
 
“It is not an exaggeration to call the [Proposition 8 case] Hollingsworth v. Perry the ‘Roe v. Wade for marriage,’” said Ron Prentice, chief executive of the California Family Council.
 
The similarity seen between the 1973 abortion decision and the two marriage cases lies in how a broad decision declaring a fundamental right has potential impacts for state marriage laws and, in some cases, constitutional provisions. A court declaration of a general right to marry a person of one’s own sex, as it did in the case of abortion, also would freeze political debate.
 
When Roe declared abortion a right, it struck down any state laws that conflicted with that ruling, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. With same-sex marriage, that means nullifying or overriding overnight statutes in 41 states to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman.
 
If the Supreme Court rules that those kinds of man-woman marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution, then the effect “would be to change the definition of marriage for all 50 states, and impose same-sex marriage on all 50 states,” said Mr. Sprigg. “That’s why these cases are like the Roe v. Wade of same-sex marriage.”


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/10/gay-marriage-ruling-may-rival-roe-v-wade-in-turmoi/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2NDBwWPFv
 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Title: David Blankenhorn, Institute For American Values Prez, Explains Gay Mrrige Shift
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 12, 2013, 09:54:22 pm
Sometimes I wonder if these people have been working for the enemy all along...

Wells without water...

David Blankenhorn, Institute For American Values President, Explains Gay Marriage Shift
2/28/13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/david-blankenhorn-institute-american-values-gay-marriage-_n_2782841.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-marriage

In a new video with Faith In America, Institute for American Values President David Blankenhorn explains his personal change of heart on gay marriage.

Last summer, Blankenhorn wrote a revelatory op-ed piece for The New York Times where he explained his newfound acceptance of marriage equality.

"I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over," he wrote at the time. "Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness."

In this honest and candid video, the man who served as the chief witness for marriage equality opponents in the California Prop 8 case explained his revelation even further.

"I felt that, at some level, I was pointing a finger of condemnation at other people...based on who they are," he recalls in the new clip. "From a spiritual point of view, my own spiritual life...when I felt that I was no longer doing that, I felt better."


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 15, 2013, 02:32:58 pm
Pretty much, as everyone can see here, the Hegelian Dialectic b/w "conservatives vs. liberals" is really being played out here, and is showing their rotten fruit, ultimately.

It seems like every day now, some self-professing "Republican" or "conservative"(or for that matter some professional sports player) is coming out supporting gay marriage - is this a surprise per se that they are doing so? No, but nonetheless for many years(since the early 80's), the false Churchianity system allowed themselves to be sucked into this Hegelian Dialectic war of words concerning social issues, thinking their good works(ie-voting) would somehow help change this country for the better.

Also interesting too is that in Matthew 24 when Jesus talks about the end times - yes, he talks about the signs(ie-earthquakes, famines, pestilences, wars, etc) to watch for. However, the BIGGEST sign he said to keep on guard is DECEPTION...look how many times he talks about it in this chapter...

Mat 24:4  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5  For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mat 24:11  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:12  And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Mat 24:23  Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Mat 24:24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat 24:25  Behold, I have told you before.
Mat 24:26  Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.


Yeah, you can't deny that part of the end times deception has been to get the false Churchianity system into this dogfight, when Jesus Christ says to WATCH and PRAY(and that is all!).


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on March 15, 2013, 03:00:56 pm
"Nevertheless we made our prayer unto our God, and set a watch against them day and night, because of them." Nehemiah 4:9 (KJB)


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 16, 2013, 11:54:18 pm
Well, this GOP Sen Rob Portman guy - in interviews he said that he now supports gay marriage b/c he wants to make his son happy. While I can empathize with him(for the most part, raising kids are not easy, and some can stray). However, if he wants to use this logic...

So if his son gets into alot of fornication and infidelities, does that mean he should come out as pro-fornication and pro-infidelities?

If his son has a drinking problem, then does this mean he should push for laws benefiting drunkards?

If he finds out his son is a serial killer, then does this mean he should push for laws benefiting serial killers?

All to make his son "happy"? Whatever happened to the children honouring the parents, which is the 1st commandment with promise as says in scripture? So now is Portman saying it should be the other way around?

FWIW, Portman isn't the only person to come out with this attitude recently.

Mat 15:4  For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5  But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6  And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7  Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8  This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.




Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 18, 2013, 05:36:32 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-tracks-dramatic-rise-support-gay-marriage-180805675--abc-news-politics.html
Poll Tracks Dramatic Rise In Support for Gay Marriage
3/18/13

Support for gay marriage reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, marking a dramatic change in public attitudes on the subject across the past decade. Fifty-eight percent of Americans now say it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.
 
That number has grown sharply in ABC News/Washington Post polls, from a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, advancing to a narrow majority for the first time only two years ago, and now up again to a significant majority for the first time.
 
Most Americans, moreover, say the U.S. Constitution should trump state laws on gay marriage, a question now before the U.S. Supreme Court. And - in another fundamental shift - just 24 percent now see homosexuality as a choice, down from 40 percent nearly 20 years ago. It's a view that closely relates to opinions on the legality of same-sex marriage.
 
Intensity of sentiment about gay marriage also shows considerable change in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. In 2004, strong opponents outnumbered strong supporters by a broad 34 percentage points. Today strong supporters are ascendant, outnumbering strong opponents by 11 points.
 
CHANGE - Results of this survey extend evidence of a remarkable transformation in public attitudes. Views on basic social issues often move slowly, if at all. Support for gay marriage, though, has gone from 47 percent to today's 58 percent in just the last three years - culminating a period of change first endorsed by some state courts, then by some political figures, notably with Hillary Clinton expressing support for same-sex marriage today, and Barack Obama doing the same last May, a position he went on to underscore in his second inaugural address in January.
 
Gay marriage today is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and civil unions are legal in eight more states (and were approved last week by the state Legislature in a ninth, Colorado). Thirty-one states ban gay marriage by constitutional amendment.
 
Sharp differences across groups remain, but there have been large advances across the board. In one striking gap, gay marriage is supported by a vast 81 percent of adults younger than 30, compared with just 44 percent of seniors. But that's up by more than 10 points in both groups just since March 2011, and by more than 20 points in both groups since 2004, the low point for gay marriage support in ABC/Post polls.
 
On the political front, 72 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents favor legalizing gay marriage, vs. far fewer Republicans, 34 percent. Still that's up by 18 points among Republicans since 2004, as well as by 24 and 29 points among independents and Democrats, respectively.
 
Similarly, while just 33 percent of conservatives support gay marriage, that's up by 23 points from nine years ago. Support encompasses more than seven in 10 liberals and moderates alike, with the greatest growth among moderates, 31 points higher now than in 2004.
 
Sentiment among religious groups shows the same kinds of trends. Among non-evangelical white Protestants, 70 percent in this poll support gay marriage, compared with fewer than half as many of those who describe themselves as evangelicals, 31 percent. But that's up by a nearly identical 25 and 24 points among these groups, respectively, since 2004. Support for gay marriage also is up, by 19 points, among Catholics, to 59 percent.
 
CHOICE? - As noted, just 24 percent of Americans now see homosexuality as "something people choose to be," down from 40 percent in an ABC/Post poll in 1994 and 33 percent (among likely voters) in 2004; the rest, 62 percent, instead say it's "just the way they are," up from just fewer than half in 1994.
 
It matters quite a lot: Among the declining number of people who see homosexuality as a choice, just 29 percent support gay marriage, with nearly seven in 10 opposed. Among those who reject this view, support for same-sex marriage soars to 73 percent.
 
There's one especially dramatic difference in seeing homosexuality as a choice: Forty-five percent of evangelical white Protestants hold this view, among the most to say so in any group tested; among non-evangelical white Protestants, 13 percent agree, among the fewest. Those are down from 1994 by similar margins - 15 and 18 points, respectively.
 
CONSTITUTION - The Supreme Court has scheduled hearings on gay marriage next week, including challenges to a vote in California barring gay marriage, and to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a woman and a man, denying married gay and lesbian couples federal benefits given to married heterosexual couples. This poll suggests that the high court is the right place for it: Americans by nearly 2-l, 64-33 percent, say the legality of gay marriage "should be decided for all states on the basis of the U.S. Constitution" rather than by each state making its own law on the issue.
 
That view, interestingly, is not much impacted by attitudes on the issue itself: Among supporters of gay marriage, 68 percent say the Constitution should rule; among opponents of gay marriage, 62 percent say the same.
 
Preference for a Constitution-based determination encompasses two-thirds or more of Democrats and independents, liberals and moderates alike; it's lower, but still a majority, among conservatives (56 percent) and Republicans (54 percent).
 
METHODOLOGY - This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone March 7-10, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-25-35 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
 
The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.


Title: Changed Minds & Demographics in Gay Marriage Shift
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 20, 2013, 07:32:40 pm
Changed Minds & Demographics in Gay Marriage Shift
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/changed-minds-demographics-gay-marriage-shift-18776831
3/21/13

The nation's views on gay marriage are more favorable in large part because of a shift in attitudes among those who know someone who is gay or became more accepting as they got older of gays and lesbians, according to a national survey.
 
The Pew Research Center poll also finds that a large group of younger adults who tend to be more open to gay rights is driving the numbers upward. The issue has grabbed the national spotlight recently with the public embrace of same-sex marriage by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.
 
"We've certainly seen the trend over the last ten years," Michael Dimock, director of the center, said Wednesday. "But we're now really in a position to talk about the combination of generational change and personal change that have sort of brought the country to where it is today."
 
Overall, the poll finds 49 percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, and 44 percent opposed to the idea. That's more people now favoring gay marriage than opposing it. A decade ago 58 percent opposed it and a third supported it.
 
The 49 percent who now support same-sex marriage includes 14 percent who said they have changed their minds
.
 
When asked why, almost one-third say it's because they know someone who is gay — a family member, friend or acquaintance. A quarter said their personal views have changed as they thought more about the issue or just because they've grown older and more accepting.

One of those polled said: "My best friend from high school is a gay man, and he deserves the same rights," adding that his friend and a partner "are in a committed relationship."
 
Another person attributed the shift in attitude to "old fashioned ignorance," and said "I grew up a little bit."
 
Just 2 percent overall said their views have shifted against gay marriage.
 
Another major factor in the long-term shift in the public's view: the so-called millennial generation of young adults born since 1980—today's 18- to 32-year-olds who entered adulthood in the new millennium. The survey finds 70 percent of millennials favor same-sex marriage.
 
Gay marriage has long been an issue of partisan political debate, but it resurfaced recently with Clinton and Portman declaring their support, and as the Supreme Court prepares to take up the issue.
 
On Monday, Clinton announced her support for gay marriage — lining up with other potential Democratic presidential candidates who favor it.
 
In an online video released by the gay rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, Clinton says that gays and lesbians are "full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship."
 
And last week, Portman reversed course and said he now supports gay marriage. He said he had a change of heart after he learned one of his sons is gay. "I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married," he wrote in an op-ed in The Columbus Dispatch. His reversal makes him the only Republican in the Senate to back gay marriage.
 
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a challenge to a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act — the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It's also reviewing California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.
 
The Pew Research findings are based on a survey of 1,501 adults nationwide conducted Mar. 13-Mar. 17. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on March 21, 2013, 03:18:43 am
Quote
That's more people now favoring gay marriage than opposing it

Sorry, but I simply don't believe that. I think they are outright lying just to forward their gay cause.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 21, 2013, 10:43:56 am
Sorry, but I simply don't believe that. I think they are outright lying just to forward their gay cause.

Although you can't deny that the Millenial crowd has bought into the gay marriage agenda(as well as other globalist agendas like not knowing what Roe V Wade is, evolution, big government, etc) - no, not saying everyone in this age group is brainwashed(we have a couple of people fellowshipping here in this age group that bear good fruit in the KJV), but at the same time look at all of the rotten fruit that has gotten to an all-time low that this demographic has been exposed to in their public institutions, modern-day churches, entertainment media, etc. It was pretty bad in my days as a kid in the 80's, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it is now.

And yes, I know these "polls" are rigged too - but at least in my neck of the woods, I also sense even the older folks are softening up on these issues. For example, when I told someone how Rick Warren endorsed gay pastors, he said, "But what if my son was gay??". On another occassion they admitted they emphathized with the young youth group leaders at their church for exposing Christian Rock music to their flock b/c "they themselves grew up with it". Do they even realize that alot of our national leaders are/were sodomites? Do they even realize that rock music is runned by Satan and his minions?

Ultimately, there's just NO accountability anymore toward the younger generation of today. When I was a young boy, my mom used to get after me alot for listening to rock music(among other things). I hated it then, but I am very grateful for it now. But fast-forward to our present day - for the most part, it's just that parents et other supervisors don't care anymore. Even pastors of their respective churches will bring alot of filth in their walls, and noone says anything about it. Yes, I know the Churchianity system is corrupt, but it just didn't happen in my days as a young boy.



Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 21, 2013, 11:12:14 am
Another thing - this has been part of the Hegelian Dialectic since 1980(when the "religious right" formed), in order to bring about this acceptance over the gay rights agenda. On one end, there's Churchianity, and on the other end of the "dogfight" are the activists like Hollywood/Ellen Degenerous crowd.

Ultimately, the whole "war of words" that lasted for so long(including seducing Churchianity to blindly vote for and follow Republican leaders) was part of this whole scheme, and to boot to make Christians look foolish.

Fast-forward to our present day - you just don't hear a chirp from the "religious right"/Churchianity since Bush II left office. The James Dobsons, Pat Robertsons, etc have all but "admitted" that they want to hang up the spurs and wish they wouldn't have done it in the first place. Come to think of it too, back in 2004 when Churchianity just got tons of media attention that election year for their "good works to get out the vote", was also the same time period when the "religious LEFT" starting infiltrating the walls quietly(ie-Rick Warren's PDL "studies" started sweeping churches across America).

Polls, scholls, you can't deny the feeling among the masses, in general, is that this once hot-topic social issue is no big deal anymore, and probably should embrace it instead.

Luk 8:14  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.


Title: Town poised to be first in Ariz. with civil unions
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 21, 2013, 08:58:21 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/town-poised-first-ariz-civil-unions-221112846.html
3/21/13
Town poised to be first in Ariz. with civil unions

SIERRA VISTA, Ariz. (AP) — A former mining community in rural southern Arizona that has shifted over the years into an artists' haven and tourist destination is poised to become the first city in this conservative state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

The Bisbee City Council, on an initial vote Tuesday, unanimously endorsed an ordinance that would give same-sex partners in civil unions the same rights in the city as married couples, the Sierra Vista Herald reported (http://bit.ly/Y1NIHL).

A formal vote on the measure is scheduled for April 2.

Bisbee City Councilman Ken Budge called the proposed ordinance long overdue. He described Bisbee, which is more liberal than most Cochise County communities, as a "compassionate and open city" doing the right thing.

"We are the blue dot in a red state of red," he said.

Some of the wording for the ordinance is from bills proposed but not passed in the Republican-led Arizona Legislature.

The head of an influential advocacy group for social conservatives said the group was studying how Bisbee's proposal "interfaces with state law."

"Clearly Bisbee granting civil unions is not in accordance with state policy," said Cathi Herrod, president of the Phoenix-based Center for Arizona Policy. "Clearly it applies only in Bisbee."

Tucson enacted a city law in December 2003 that recognized domestic partnerships, but Bisbee's proposed ordinance appears more comprehensive.

Under the ordinance, two people in a civil union would be considered spouses in such matters as property ownership, guardianship in cases of illness, and disposition of remains upon death, City Attorney John MacKinnon said.

The measure says Bisbee would be exercising "inherent powers of self-government" under its city charter to attempt to reduce discriminatory practices. It also says every person has the right to enter into a "lasting and meaningful relationship with the partner of his or her choice, regardless of the particular sexual orientation of that partnership."

If the ordinance is approved, same-sex couples could go to City Hall and get a form indicating they want to enter into a civil union. The city clerk would file the notarized form and a signed affidavit, then issue the couple a certificate of the civil union.

The form would cost $76, the same cost of a marriage license.

Several Bisbee residents urged the council to support the measure.

Margo McCartney said after her partner of 16 years died, the partner's daughter had to sign all documents because the couple wasn't married and had no rights.

"It's so humiliating," McCartney said through tears. "So. I'm hoping that Bisbee will be out there first."


Title: More PROPAGANDA - Study: Same-sex parents raise well-adjusted kids
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 22, 2013, 07:04:22 pm
http://living.msn.com/family-parenting/the-family-room-blog-post?post=f1d0f6f3-358f-4253-b501-3c847ba2cf0c&_nwpt=1
3/22/13
After more than 25 years of research, American Academy of Pediatrics has found no link between parents’ sexual orientation and their children's emotional well-being.

Next week, the hot topic of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court for arguments on its constitutionality.

Support for the legalization of same-sex marriage sits at 53 percent and a recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans say gays and lesbians should be able to legally adopt children.

On Thursday, the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, issued a powerful statement supporting marriage equality for all consenting couples, as well as full adoption and foster-care rights for parents regardless of sexual orientation reports The Huffington Post.

“There is a lot of research to back up this policy,” Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston told The Huffington Post. “If a child has two parents that are dedicated and willing to provide a permanent, secure family, why would we not support that family? It's clearly in the best interest of children.”

In 2006, after 25 years of research AAP concluded to have found no link between parents' sexual orientation and their children's emotional well-being.

“The statement by the AAP also reaffirms more than 30 years of social science research that concludes that children grow up with the same positive developmental outcomes whether their parents are of the same gender or different genders,” wrote a Family Equality Council spokesperson on its website. “More importantly, it matches the lived experiences of many of our parents who have raised a generation of children into young adulthood who are successful by every measure.”

In the United States, between 1 million and 6 million children are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on March 23, 2013, 03:03:40 am
Quote
American Academy of Pediatrics has found no link between parents’ sexual orientation and their children's emotional well-being

Well, of course they did! I expect no less from a bunch of atheist scientists. ::)


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 23, 2013, 03:50:11 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/straight-people-paved-way-gay-marriage-132613801.html
3/23/13
How Straight People Paved the Way for Gay Marriage

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments next week for and against the legalization of same-sex marriage, the public is increasingly coming down on the "for" side.

In fact, an ABC News-Washington Post poll released Monday (March 18) found that 58 percent of Americans now favor the legalization of same-sex marriage, a number that leaped from just 37 percent in 2003. The shift in opinion is dramatic compared with other social issues. Public opinion on abortion, for example, has barely budged since the 1970s.

Some of the change is likely the result of more advocacy and visibility by gay Americans. But marriage itself has changed, gradually toppling the gendered roles that once defined man and wife.

"Now we're organized in a gender-neutral way,"
said Stephanie Coontz, the director of the Research Council on Contemporary Families and author of the book "Marriage: A History" (Penguin Books, 2006
).


"It's up to the individual couple to negotiate their roles and duties," Coontz said. "It's really easy for a heterosexual couple to say, 'That's what I've got, why shouldn't same-sex couples have it?'" [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

Out of the closet

Tolerance for gays and lesbians has gone up considerably. Some of this is generational: According to the Pew Research Center, 70 percent of the Millennial generation (born after 1980) supports legal same-sex marriage, compared with 49 percent of Gen Xers (1965-1980) and 38 percent of Baby Boomers (1946-1964). The Silent generation (1928-1945) is least likely to support same-sex marriage, at only 31 percent in favor.

But support within each of those generational brackets has risen over the past decade, too. For example, in 2003, only 17 percent of the Silent generation supported same-sex marriage.

Visibility of gays and lesbians has made part of the difference. When Pew asked people who had changed their minds from anti-same-sex marriage to in favor why they'd shifted their attitudes, the most common response (32 percent) was that they knew someone who was gay and that personal relationship had altered their opinion.

Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio recently made headlines for altering his opinion in just this way. The senator came out in support of same-sex marriage in an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch on March 15, saying that he'd changed his mind after his college-age son came out as gay.

Another 25 percent of Pew respondents simply said they'd grown more open or thought about it more, and 18 percent said legal same-sex marriage was "just inevitable." Another 18 percent cited love, happiness or the need for the government to stay out of relationship decisions.

Changing marriage

As opinions have shifted, so has marriage. Getting married once meant signing on to traditional gender roles wholesale. Companies once refused to consider married women for employment, or required women who were getting married to resign. (IBM, for example, only altered this policy in 1951.) It wasn't until the late 1970s that women could sue for consortium, or the right to their husband's aid, support and companionship. Before then, a man could sue a third party that injured his wife (through medical malpractice, for example) on the grounds that her injury took away his right to consortium — she couldn't provide him with services and companionship he had rights to. But because women were legally inferior to men, a wife could not sue on behalf of her husband.

It wasn't until the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 that married couples won the right to contraception. Assisted reproduction, such as it was back then, was also frowned upon. [7 Surprising Facts about The Pill]

"In the 1950s, at least two state courts held that assisted reproduction was adultery and the child was illegitimate," Coontz said.

Laws such as this gradually got overturned, Coontz said, making marriages far less gendered. At the same time, expectations that a married couple must procreate have declined — and assisted reproductive technology is far more acceptable for couples who can't have kids the old-fashioned way.

In other words, same-sex couples haven't changed marriage for straight people, as opponents of same-sex marriage often argue, Coontz said. Heterosexuals changed marriage first.

"It's the opposite sequence than what is described by opponents of same-sex marriage," she said.

Opponents of same-sex marriage tend to hold more traditional, gendered views of marriage than supporters, Coontz said. But given that heterosexuals aren't quizzed on their plans for splitting up the household chores or having babies before being handed a marriage license, it's hard to construct legal arguments around that view.

"It's harder for opponents to say every family has to have a guy who does this and a gal who does this," she said.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry on Tuesday (March 26), reviewing a federal appeals court decision that found Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, unconstitutional. On Wednesday (March 27), the Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Windsor, a challenge against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which refuses federal benefits to same-sex couples in states where gay marriage is legal.



Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 23, 2013, 03:59:43 pm
^^ Yeah, can't deny that all of this didn't exactly happen overnight, nor in the last 20-25 years alone, but GRADUALLY and SLOWLY over a very, very long period of time. The article did a good job to point out where it all started...

Eph 5:22  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


Luk 17:28  Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luk 17:29  But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all
.

**the word "plant" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary has several meanings, and it doesn't necessarily mean plant a garden or infrastructure of a building. One of the meanings they have is "to establish".
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,plant


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 25, 2013, 06:41:18 pm
Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chief-justice-john-roberts-lesbian-cousin-attend-prop-145833042--election.html

Chief Justice John Roberts' first cousin, a lesbian, will attend Tuesday's oral arguments in the first gay marriage case to reach the Supreme Court. She will be in the seating section reserved for the justice's family and close friends.

Jean Podrasky, 48, told the Los Angeles Times that she hopes her first cousin will decide to overturn California's gay marriage ban, called Proposition 8, so that she can marry her longtime girlfriend. “He is a smart man,” Podrasky told the paper of the George W. Bush-appointed justice. “He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”

Podrasky said she arranged to get her seats through Roberts' sister. The courtroom seating for the historic case has been very much in demand, with supporters of gay marriage lining up as early as Friday afternoon to wait more than three days for a shot at entry.

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Mark on March 26, 2013, 06:29:50 am
‘Marriage Equality’ Spells ‘Marriage Extinction’

This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.

They’d better leave it alone.

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

In a recent column headlined, “The Revolt of Intelligence Against ‘Marriage Equality,” worldview expert Rick Pearcey addressed one prominent “gay” activist’s admission that the destruction of natural marriage signifies the left’s ultimate cultural coup de grâce.

“Masha Gessen, a lesbian and a journalist, spoke frankly about this at a conference in Sydney, Australia,” he wrote. “‘It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

Still, if counterfeit “same-sex marriage” becomes the law of the land, then much will follow before marriage extinction inevitably occurs.

One of liberals’ favorite Alinskyite defense mechanisms is to ridicule the opposition if confronted with some irrefutable argument against some hallowed left-wing delusion. Such is the tactic employed whenever a thinking person walks into the room and points this out: Once the government pretends that some vague combination of “love” and “consent” are all that a “marriage” requires, then other “arbitrary” and “discriminatory” parameters beyond a binary male-female prerequisite must also go poof.

That is to say, if the Court magically divines some constitutional right to “same-sex marriage,” then full “marriage equality” necessarily demands that polygamous, incestuous and any other equally aberrant nuptial cocktail be likewise permitted.

It’s a “no-brainer,” right?

To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia voiced my concerns better than I can: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, ****, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then “equal protection under the law” requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

Liberty Counsel made these very points in a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court: “Ultimately, there is no principled basis for recognizing a legality of same-sex marriage without simultaneously providing a basis for the legality of consensual polygamy or certain adult incestuous relationships,” noted the brief. “In fact, every argument for same-sex marriage is an argument for them as well.”

Another brief filed by 18 state attorneys general voiced similar concerns: “Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage,” they wrote.

The brief further observed the self-evident “no-brainer” that legitimate marriage is “optimal for children and society at large.”

It’s all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. “‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’”

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit on the highest bench in the land recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end. And it’s not the emotionalist end they’ve dolled-up and dished out. The left’s fierce push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with “marriage equality” and everything to do with “marriage extinction.”

Or, as Ms. Gessen candidly put it: “t’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/03/25/marriage-equality-spells-marriage-extinction-n1548427/page/full/


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 26, 2013, 12:18:50 pm
Quote
To that end, I’m very concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent history of radically redefining that which cannot be redefined. Though examples abound, I’m thinking specifically, as concerns the topic at hand, of the Court’s 2003 holding in Lawrence v. Texas.

In Lawrence, the liberal majority, for the first time in history, radically redefined male-on-male sodomy – hitherto classified “a crime against nature” – as a “constitutional right.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just pray that at least five justices still think it should.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2013/03/25/marriage-equality-spells-marriage-extinction-n1548427/page/full/

Coming from Townhall - pretty much a Republican-establishment leaning site. So no mention of the 100+ Republican establishment people that wrote memos to the USSC endorsing gay marriage? No mention of Anthony Kennedy, a RONALD REAGAN appointee, voting to strike down anti-sodomy laws(Lawrence vs. Texas) in 2003? No mention of John Roberts, a Bush II appointee, over inviting his lesbian cousin to watch the court proceedings?

You pray that that the USSC vote to strike down gay marriage? I agree with you, but you shouldn't have turned a blind eye when Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Conner, and John Roberts were appointed by GOP Presidents, and you shouldn't have turned a blind eye when 100+ GOP people endorsed gay marriage recently.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 26, 2013, 01:10:59 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/prop-8-supreme-court-justices-spar-over-gay-155005999--politics.html
Prop 8: Supreme Court justices spar over gay marriage case
3/26/13

Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism Tuesday that the proponents of California's gay marriage ban have the legal right to defend the proposition in court.

Several of the justices closely questioned the attorneys in the landmark case over the procedural legal issue, called standing, suggesting they may be poised to throw the case out without significantly addressing the broader issue of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote and the author of two major decisions in favor of gay rights, appeared to be on the fence in the controversial case. Early in the arguments, he suggested that the estimated 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents' inability to wed. "They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Kennedy said. "The voice of these children is important in this case," he said
.


Later in the oral arguments, however, Kennedy said he wondered whether the case should have been granted at all, again mentioning the standing issue.

"You're really asking for us to go into uncharted waters," Kennedy said, adding that there's a "substantial question" over whether Prop 8's defenders have the standing to bring suit.

Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving vs. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world.

The standing issue has dogged supporters of Prop 8 since former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's attorney general declined to appeal a lower court's decision striking down the ban. A coalition of people who helped place Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place stepped up to defend the ban in court without financial help from the state. That group must prove they would experience a direct injury if Prop 8 is struck down in order to have standing to appeal.

The state Supreme Court in California ruled that the coalition had standing to pursue the case, but justices from both the liberal and conservative wings of the court appeared skeptical of that ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was appropriate for supporters of a ballot initiative to defend it in court, rather than the state itself. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court had never "allowed anything like it" in the past.

If the justices decide to throw out the case on standing, the lower court's decision allowing gay marriage will most likely be the law of the land in California.

Even if the justices get past the standing hurdle, they did not appear to be poised to issue a broad ruling affirming gay marriage.

But the Court's four more liberal justices, along with swing justice Kennedy, closely questioned the Prop 8 defenders' attorney about why the government has a reason to exclude gay people from marriage.

Justice Elena Kagan asked attorney Charles Cooper to explain how allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt heterosexual marriage. Cooper replied that he did not think that was the question at hand in the case, at which point Kennedy interjected and asked if he was "conceding the point" that gay marriage does not cause harm. Cooper answered that there may be unforeseen consequences of broadening the "age-old, bedrock" institution of marriage to include gay people.

But even though Kennedy appeared skeptical of the argument that the government has a reason to deny same-sex couples marriage, he also expressed frustration with the quality of the case, mentioning both the standing issue and some of the odder legal arguments advanced by the lower courts.

Kennedy also noted that research into how same-sex couples and their children fare is new. “We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history,” he said.

Many legal experts believe Kennedy will join with the four liberals on the court to write an opinion that strikes down Prop 8 on narrow grounds that will not affect the gay marriage bans in effect in dozens of other states.  But during arguments, Kennedy criticized the Ninth Circuit opinion narrowly striking down Prop 8 in California as advancing an "odd rationale," which suggests he may not want to uphold it.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 26, 2013, 03:52:20 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/26/supreme-court-to-hear-arguments-in-gay-marriage-cases-that-could-have

Quote
The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.

They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson's onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

Well, well...surprise surprise! ::) Wow...it seemed like the whole Bush v. Gore ordeal was yesterday, and now we're seeing lawyers that were on OPPOSITE sides TEAM up together to push for gay marriage, while their "opponent" happens to be one of their long-time colleagues? ::)

Looks like one big happy family now!

Quote
But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned.  And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.


Uhm...didn't Obama once upon a time ago say gay marriage should be LEFT UP TO THE STATES?(Before he "changed" his position, that is)

This is just my opinion - but if the ruling will be just this(left up to the states), then it's going to open up a whole new can of worms, why? B/c the gay rights movement in those 30 states are going to come out complaining, "But California got their way with the high courts, why can't we have our equal rights?".

This line of thinking by the establishment is a TRAP!

Isaiah_24:5  The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on March 26, 2013, 03:53:16 pm
Quote
children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents' inability to wed.

That's bull dung. Children can be cared for medically and mentally, regardless of their parents status. It's done every day across the country in free clinics. If the child is sick, you treat them, regardless of parents or medical insurance.

Parents, people, or groups who are denying children medical care, especially based on their insurance or lack of, should be the ones questioned.

Insurance companies are the first ones that should be in court explaining their actions, but the evil world and it's politicians simply won't do that. Too much money involved for the medical industry to be non-profit.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 27, 2013, 07:25:11 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-next-gay-marriage-case-eyes-federal-050121766.html
Supreme Court indicates it may strike down marriage law
3/27/13

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court seemed to be leaning on Wednesday toward striking down a law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in a move that would reflect a shift in Americans' attitudes about gay marriage.

In a second day of oral arguments on same-sex marriage, a majority of the court raised serious concerns with the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, enacted in 1996 under President Bill Clinton.

Arguments over the last two days on the DOMA case and a separate one challenging California's ban on gay marriage marked the high court's first foray into a delicate and divisive political, religious and social issue in the United States as polls indicate growing public support for same-sex marriage.

In theory, the cases have the potential for the court to take a significant step toward endorsing gay marriage as it gains support in some parts of the country. Based on the arguments, however, a partial victory for gay rights activists seems more likely than the sweeping declaration of same-sex marriage rights they had hoped for.

As demonstrators rallied outside the Supreme Court building for a second day, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote, showed a willingness to invalidate DOMA, which denies married same-sex couples access to federal benefits by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

He warned of a "real risk" that the law infringes on the traditional role of the states in defining marriage.

A conservative, Kennedy is viewed as a key vote on this issue in part because he has twice authored decisions in the past that were viewed as favorable to gay rights.

In contrast to the ambivalent approach they displayed on Tuesday in arguments about California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, the nine justices seemed willing to address the substantive issue in the DOMA case, while also eyeing procedural questions
.


The court is not expected to rule on the two cases until the end of June. If the justices were to strike down DOMA, legally married gay couples would be winners because they would have improved access to federal benefits, such as tax deductions.

Justices gave a strong indication they might resolve the Proposition 8 case on procedural grounds, but even that would be viewed as a win for gay rights activists as same-sex marriages in California would likely resume.

What appears highly unlikely is a sweeping declaration of a right for gay people to marry, a possible option only in the California case.

Overall, a majority of the justices made it clear that, while they might not impede the recent movement among some states toward gay marriage, they were not willing to pave the way either.

Nine states now recognize gay marriage, while 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between.

On several occasions over the two days, the justices' own remarks illustrated how quickly attitudes have changed in favor of gay marriage.

During Tuesday's arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, questioned whether there was sufficient data to show that children are not adversely affected if raised by same-sex couples. Likewise, Justice Samuel Alito noted the concept of gay marriage is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."

Offering a liberal perspective, Justice Elena Kagan prompted murmurs of surprise from onlookers on Wednesday when she quoted from a U.S. House of Representatives report written less than two decades ago, at the time DOMA was enacted, that referenced "moral disapproval" of gay marriage.

'SKIM MILK MARRIAGE'

As attention turned to DOMA on Wednesday, Kennedy made it clear where he stood, referring to DOMA as "inconsistent" because it purports to give authority to the states to define marriage while limiting recognition of those determinations.

His states' rights concerns were echoed by two of the liberal members of the bench, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?" Sotomayor said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer also raised concerns about the law.

Ginsburg stressed how important federal recognition is to any person who is legally married.

"It affects every area of life," she said.

Comparing marriage status with types of milk, Ginsburg said that a gay marriage endorsed by a state, but not recognized by the federal government, creates two types of marriage, "full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

If the court rules on the states' rights issue, the justices could strike down the law without deciding the bigger question of whether DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

On that issue, Kagan spoke of a "red flag" that indicates Congress passed DOMA with the intent of targeting a group that is "not everyone's favorite group in the world."

Various groups are calling for DOMA to be struck down, such as the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal, whose members include Marriott International Inc, Aetna Inc, eBay Inc, and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of the Reuters news agency.

Separately, several conservative justices criticized Obama and his Justice Department for not defending the marriage law in court.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Obama had "the courage of his convictions" for continuing to enforce DOMA while calling it invalid.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 27, 2013, 07:28:46 pm
The man who brought us Anthony Kennedy(and Sandra Day O'Conner too)...

(http://www.omni.to/upload/illuminati-cards/thumb/ronald_reagan.jpg)


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2013, 11:23:43 pm
Analysis: Gay marriage rights may carry bigger U.S. tax burden for some
3/28/13
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-gay-marriage-rights-may-carry-bigger-u-222320190.html

By Kim Dixon and Patrick Temple-West

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a federal law defining marriage as between a man and woman, the newfound rights for gay married couples may bear something not so welcome - a bigger tax burden.

That's because with equality, gay couples will face the same tax woes of many heterosexual couples with similar incomes, including the tax hit known in America as the marriage penalty.

Taxpayers filing as married couples may be forced to pay higher taxes as their collective income crosses into a higher tax bracket sooner than if they were filing separately.

Oral arguments on Wednesday gave gay marriage backers hope the court would overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after a majority of the nine justices raised concerns about the law's validity under the U.S. Constitution.

Taxes are at the very heart of the challenge to DOMA.

The case involves Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a New York couple. When Spyer died in 2009, DOMA prevented Windsor from enjoying one of the biggest tax breaks enjoyed by heterosexual Americans - the exemption from federal estate tax on wealth passed from one spouse to another.

If the law is struck down, the ruling extending the exemption to gay and lesbian surviving spouses would also clear the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.

Cynthia Leachmoore, a tax preparer in Soquel, California, has about 40 same-sex married couples as customers ranging from teachers to Silicon Valley workers.

A handful of them have joint incomes that top $1 million. They're facing $25,000 to $30,000 more in federal and state taxes if DOMA goes down and they file taxes jointly, she said
.

"Most of them don't care. They'd really like to be able to say that they were married" on tax returns, Leachmoore said. "That's more important to them."

COMPLICATIONS

Married gay couples would see other benefits, including a break in taxes now paid on health insurance and greater access to federal family and medical leave.

There are some 130,000 same-sex married couples in the United States as estimated by the Census Bureau, and nearly 650,000 same-sex couples, married and not, in total.

The Byzantine U.S. tax code's marriage definition is not consistent. In some sections, the marriage provisions are defined for a "husband and wife." Other places say "spouse."

If the law is struck down, the Internal Revenue Service may need Congress to clarify the tax code, or the Obama administration may say same-sex married couples will be treated the same as opposite-sex marriages, said Annette Nellen, a tax professor at San Jose State University.

GOOD FOR TAX COFFERS

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in 2004 estimated that recognition of gay marriage would, on net, help the budget's bottom line by $1 billion a year over 10 years. The increased revenue would account for about 0.1 percent of total federal revenues at the time.

My Comment: So this is about $$$$ after all as well?

The Williams Institute, a unit of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, estimates that gay marriage may be good also for the fiscal health of states and localities that legalize it.

Of the 50 states, 31 have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. It is legal in nine states and Washington, D.C.

The remaining states' policies vary, with some recognizing marriage from other states, some providing some of the legal benefits of marriage and others denying marriage by state laws.

Williams Institute estimated that if Rhode Island legalized marriage, its coffers would gain $1.2 million in 2010 dollars over three years, largely due to lower spending on social welfare programs and increased income tax revenue and marriage license fees.

That is the small slice of the hundreds of millions in operating deficits Rhode Island is expected to be working under in the next five years, as estimated by a governor's report.

Because of differing state laws, it is unclear what the impact might be in states with laws disallowing gay marriage.

Brian Moulton, an attorney with the Human Rights Campaign, said that if he married legally in Washington, D.C., and moved to Oklahoma, where gay marriage is not legal, the federal government might still recognize the union.

But Todd Solomon, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery and author of a book on domestic partner benefits, said he was not so sure that would be the case.

"It is an open question as to what happens in Oklahoma," he said. "Each state will still be allowed to legislate marriage
."


INCOME, ESTATE, HEALTH TAXES

Although the case was about the estate tax, only 3,600 estates owed the estate tax in 2012, according to government figures, and the wealthiest Americans pay most of it.

The end of DOMA might also save same-sex couples from having to pay some federal taxes on healthcare benefits they receive through a spouse's employer. Unmarried domestic partners on average owe an extra $1,000 annually in taxes on these benefits because they are now taxed, according to Williams.

"Everyone will get a benefit if they were carrying health insurance," said Nanette Lee Miller, head of non-traditional family practice at accounting firm Marcum LLP in San Francisco.

The impact on Social Security benefits will be mixed. DOMA prevents same sex couples from claiming the survivors benefits extended to married couples. But Social Security recipients might face greater taxes on their benefits because they will hit the level where the benefits begin to be taxed sooner if married.

(Writing by Kim Dixon; Editing by Howard Goller, Mary Milliken and Tim Dobbyn)


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2013, 11:28:01 pm
^^ So apparently, one of the agendas here is the love of money...lawyers, accountants, and the federal/state governments will all be profiting quite a bit over this(well, maybe not the latter as much b/c they are so deeply in debt).

Prov_11:1  A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 29, 2013, 01:24:28 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/rush-limbaugh-regardless-supreme-court-ruling-gay-marriage-234407342--abc-news-politics.html
Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is 'Inevitable'
3/28/13

In his radio show today, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said defenders of traditional marriage have lost the battle, even though the Supreme Court won't hand down its decisions for another few months.

"I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable," Limbaugh said, "and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this."

Limbaugh took issue with the idea that the word marriage was already applied to gay couples. Therefore, he asserted, modifiers like "hetero" or "opposite-sex" are now at times added to denote a union between a man and a woman.

"I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word 'marriage' to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it - because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything," the radio host said. "Marriage is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way."

On Wednesday, he made a similar prediction, saying that gay marriage would soon become legal " nationwide."

Earlier this year, Limbaugh compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

Today, he claimed discrimination against gay couples "is not an issue."

"No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits. There's nobody that wants to deny them that. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can't have, by definition. By definition - solely, by definition - same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we're dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it's not and never has been."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh Rush - you forgot to say who appointed Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Conner, and David Souter to the high court...yep, your "hero" Ronald Reagan appointed the first 2(and his VP turned President Bush I appointed the latter). All of whom planted the seeds over the long haul for what we're seeing now.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 29, 2013, 06:23:11 pm
http://theweek.com/article/index/241898/how-gay-rights-tipped-so-quickly
How gay rights tipped so quickly
March 26, 2013, at 5:27 PM

In some ways, today's Supreme Court arguments over California's Proposition 8 were overshadowed by the decision of several Democratic senators from red or purple states to openly and actively support marriage equality. Actually, even that pales in comparison to Richard Land, the key Southern Baptist political evangelist, who just said, basically, "never mind," when it comes to the next generation of evangelicals being uncomfortable about gay rights. To be sure, he still opposes gay rights, still thinks that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, and believes that anti-gay leaders are being ostracized from polite society. On that last part, he's kind of correct. The zone of tolerance for acceptable viewpoints has narrowed very quickly.

Why has the structure of the gay rights debate shifted so quickly? The Week's Peter Weber has found six reasons. I have some guesses, a few obvious ones, and a few not-so-obvious, and I'm going to try to put them in order of importance.

First: Harvey Milk had it right. All politics is personal. Self-identified gays make up about three and a half percent of the population. That means that almost everyone with a social life in America knows someone who is gay. In fact, nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed say that someone close to them is gay. (Sarah Palin's best friend is gay.) Of those who've changed their minds on the issue, the plurality say that they expanded their circle of empathy simply because their circle came to include gay people.

But here's the important point: In order for this to happen, gay people had to take risks and come out. So: The pressure within the gay community to stigmatize "the closet," a pressure that can be pretty intense at times, has paid off.

It follows that people still won't come out if the social and personal penalties for doing so are high. But concerted efforts by gay rights activists and by Hollywood, working separately, have made the environment everywhere more hospitable for gay people, even in places where anti-gay prejudice remains high. Hollywood's pro-gay tilt is not a conspiracy. It is, just like Hollywood's pro-military tilt, an indelible fact driven by personal political orientation as well as economics. In conjunction, gay politics got smarter after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court instituted gay marriage in that state, which provoked a revanchist backlash in a number of states. 

From here, the 2008 presidential campaign plays a pivotal role. Yes, Barack Obama didn't support marriage equality at first. But the prime movers of his electoral success, the Obama generation, strongly supported complete civil and social equality for gays. Obama activated this generation. And once in office, Obama took some risks and proved his chops as a leader. The synergy between gay activists and the government will be studied for years to come, as it ought to be. Gay money bankrolled Obama's re-election; I am not overstating its impact.

Then the anti-bullying campaign, another half-grassroots, half-organized political crusade, focused attention on, specifically, anti-gay bullying of young people. It Gets Better videos apply to everyone, but the real target was (and is) gay youth. That so small a segment of the population could be the beneficiary of such widespread and popular grassroots encouragement is sort of amazing. It's also not an accident of history. Those who tend to support gay rights the most and those who have the resources to do something about it joined together in a concerted manner to lend legitimacy to the cause. One of them is Ken Mehlman, the former RNC chairman, who has devoted his life since coming out to persuading those within his party that equality's time has come. Republicans have come a long way in a short period of time, and Mehlman ought to get credit for it. (He doesn't want credit, but he'll get it.)

Once the barrier to gays serving in the military fell, and...nothing apocalyptic happened, and once a few states began to experiment with gay marriage, and...nothing apocalyptic happened, the only remaining arguments against same-sex unions are religious and provincial. They're small. They're associated with bigotry. No one wants to be a bigot.

And so, here we are.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 29, 2013, 06:43:29 pm
How Obama Decided God Was OK With Marriage Equality
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/how-obama-decided-god-was-ok-with-marriage-equality

Pastor: Jesus Was Wrong About Marriage
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/27/Pastor-Jesus-Didnt-Know-Everything
"If Jesus were alive today, he would be more inclined to say, 'you know, I didn't know it all...'" - Rev. Oliver White, Sean Hannity Show, March 27, 2013

Senate gay-marriage pool update: GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski says her views are “evolving”
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/28/senate-gay-marriage-pool-update-lisa-murkowski-says-her-views-are-evolving/

‘Marriage equality’ or ‘marriage extinction’? Next: equal rights for incest and bestiality
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/03/26/marriage-equality-or-marriage-extinction-up-next-equal-rights-for-polygamy-incest-and-bestiality/


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 31, 2013, 05:17:09 pm
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gay-marriage-chaos-20130331,0,7749021.column
McManus: SCOTUS-induced chaos on gay marriage?

If there is a narrow ruling against Prop. 8 and DOMA is struck down, expect a legal and political mess.

3/31/13

If the Supreme Court decides the two gay marriage cases it heard last week the way most court watchers believe it will, expect legal and political chaos.

The court seems ready to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, while ruling quite narrowly on California's Proposition 8, allowing a lower-court decision to stand. Such an outcome would make gay marriage legal in California without deciding whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

And that would allow more of what we've seen up to now: a growing number of liberal blue states moving to legalize gay marriage, and a growing number of conservative red states enacting bans.

But there will be one big difference: Gays who live in states that allow gay marriage may have an array of federal privileges unavailable to those living in states that ban such marriages. And that raises complex questions.

What happens to two gay men who marry in New York and then move to Salt Lake City? Will they still be married? If they have children, will the kids have two parents under Utah law? And will their federal benefits, such as survivors' Social Security benefits, travel with them, even though they've moved to a state where their marriage isn't valid? Will they file their federal tax returns jointly but state returns separately? And don't even think about the issue of divorce.

This kind of legal patchwork virtually guarantees that politicians in states that don't recognize gay marriage will be debating and legislating the issue for years, making for an even more confusing situation. The ensuing chaos could harm more than just gay couples; the Republican Party stands to lose too.

Gay marriage has been embraced by a substantial majority of Democrats and Democratic politicians. In blue states, the trend lines suggest that opinion among Democrats will soon be so one-sided that it will cease to be an issue.

It's different in the GOP. Most Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin, with only about a quarter in favor in a recent Pew Research Center poll. But the survey also suggests that the issue will grow as a wedge that divides the party, in part because of a big generational divergence: 76% of Republicans over 65 oppose gay marriage, while only 54% of those under 30 do.

And when the question is changed from marriage to equal rights, the wedge potential is even clearer: Republicans divide right down the middle as to whether homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, 49% to 48%, with young people again more permissive than older voters.

One leading GOP fundraiser described the conflict to me as "between the Christians and the donors" — Christian social conservatives who want the party to stand forthrightly against gay marriage, and donors who want the GOP to broaden its appeal to young people and moderates as a path toward winning the next election.

Speaking on condition he not be identified, this veteran of conservative campaigns noted that the GOP needs to keep all those groups inside its tent, which will make gay marriage a problem for any would-be presidential candidate in 2016.

All the current prospective candidates have stuck with GOP orthodoxy, making it clear that they oppose gay marriage — with the intriguing exception of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who said last week that he thinks the states should have the right to decide.

The best course for a presidential candidate, the fundraiser said, is to try to duck the issue. Paradoxically, this means a bold Supreme Court ruling recognizing a constitutional right to gay marriage might be best for the GOP in practical terms — because it would put the issue beyond the reach of legislation. If the court leaves the issue up to the states, that would give presidential candidates a states' rights place to hide — but they would still be pressed to take a clear position in caucus and primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina.

And that brings me to the third category of opinion in the Republican Party: A growing group of conservatives, including young evangelicals, who oppose gay marriage as a matter of principle, but who are willing to accept it as a civil institution for people who don't share their religious beliefs.

"You can believe that homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage can be legal," Timothy Keller, pastor of the conservative Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, told me at a conference sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

That segment of the population — culturally conservative but increasingly libertarian on matters of law — may be the one to watch as the debate over gay marriage rolls on unabated even after the court makes up its mind
.


Another case, perhaps, of the public moving faster than the politicians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't the issue with this case in 2010, and last year(2012), over Prop 8, and Prop 8 ALONE in California? Now they're toning down their rhetoric to "But it should be left up to the states...forget California...". Yeah, even if it's not a broad ruling in June, nonetheless a whole new can of worms will open up.

Psalms_11:3  If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 01, 2013, 04:54:38 pm
It seems like a lot of politicians' quotes in new articles I've been reading lately, they have this attitude of "I'm not a same-sex marriage supporter, BUT..." OR "I'm against same-sex marriage but for DIFFERENT reasons...". This I think is part of their Jesuitical/Hegalian Dialectical talk. Also, there have been movie plots in recent years(especially during the pre-Obama years when almost no one thought it would be legalized one day) with these themes...

http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-gop-chairs-gay-marriage-scenario-sounds-lot-154500711.html
Georgia GOP chair's gay marriage scenario sounds a lot like I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
04/01/13

Sue Everhart warns that straight people could enter sham gay marriages to gain benefits

For those of you fortunate enough not to have seen I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, here is the plot: Adam Sandler and Kevin James play two straight firefighters who, in a scheme to gain domestic partnership benefits, pretend to be gay and get married. For your consideration:

Now here is the gay-marriage scenario put forth by Sue Everhart, chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party, according to the Marietta Daily Journal:

You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride. [Marietta Daily Journal]
Is this a realistic scenario? Will straight men and women soon be flocking to preachers that look like Rob Schneider in the hopes of riding the gravy train that is gay marriage?

The problem with Everhart's logic, according to Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog, is that "if this is an argument against same-sex marriage, isn't it also an argument against opposite-sex marriage? After all, what's to stop a man and a woman who are friends from pulling the same scam?"

The federal government is already extremely serious about cracking down on marriage fraud. The Chicago Tribune reports that individuals in sham marriages for immigration purposes face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine
.


Comparable cases involving gay marriage are difficult to find because, as the Huffington Post's Luke Johnson points out, "There isn't any evidence of widespread fraud following the adoption of gay marriage in nine states and the District of Columbia."

Philip Bump at The Atlantic says that if you are going to ban a practice for fear of fraud, you would have to move beyond marriage:

You know who else commits fraud in the state of Georgia? People who take out mortgages. Last year, a report suggested that the state was the nation's sixth-worst for fraudulent home loans. Since mortgages are such an enticement for abuse, then, it's only fair that the state ban borrowing to buy a home
. [The Atlantic]


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 01, 2013, 11:34:15 pm
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 10:30AM
Today's Show: THE BRADY BUNCH & THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

Chris discusses a recent article in which Susan Olsen, star of the 70's show "The Brady Bunch," pays homage to her TV dad -- the late Robert Reed -- celebrating the fact that he was a homosexual, and blaming his death on Christians who preach against the gay lifestyle.  Her testimony is the latest in Hollywood's ongoing war against the Christian faith.  Olsen goes out of her way to say that those who oppose homosexuality are "exactly like the primitive practice of people who killed babies" who were born with birth defects.  But is it really "Christianity" that causes the premature death of homosexuals?  Robert Reed's death reveals the truth about the gay philosophy, and exposes the true culprits in what is devastating the homosexual community.

http://www.noiseofthunder.com/storage/NOTR_BRADY.BUNCH_04.01.13.mp3


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 02, 2013, 01:25:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-us-sen-mark-kirk-supporting-gay-marriage-161815047.html
GOP Sen. Kirk Announces Support for Gay Marriage
4/2/13

GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois said Tuesday he supports gay marriage, becoming the second sitting Republican senator to make such an announcement in recent weeks.

Kirk, who previously opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, said in a post on his blog that "same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage."

"Our time on this Earth is limited, I know that better than most," said Kirk, who suffered a stroke in January 2012. "Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle."

Kirk went through months of rehabilitation before returning to work in Washington this January. He said in his blog post that when he went back to the Senate he promised himself he would return "with an open mind and greater respect for others."

Kirk is Illinois' ranking Republican lawmaker. His announcement comes less than three weeks after Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Republican in the Senate to say he supported gay marriage and one week after the U.S. Supreme Court held two days of oral arguments on the subject.

It also comes as the Illinois Legislature is giving final consideration to a measure that would make Illinois the 10th state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage.

The Illinois Senate voted in February to lift a state ban on same-sex marriage. The legislation also was approved by a House committee, but has yet to be called for a floor vote. Speaker of the House Michael Madigan said recently he believes supporters are a dozen votes short of what they need for the bill to pass.

Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat, has said he would sign the measure.

Kirk's announcement could give political cover to Republicans in the Illinois House who are considering a yes vote but are fearful of a backlash — or a primary challenge — from social conservatives.

The news was greeted with enthusiasm by supporters.

"We continue to see the momentum behind marriage equality grow, especially among Republicans." said Rick Garcia, Director of the Equal Marriage Illinois Project and Policy Director for The Civil Rights Agenda, Illinois' largest gay rights advocacy organization. "The momentum is stunning and we welcome it."

Kirk served five terms in Congress representing Chicago's northern suburbs before he won the 2010 race for President Barack Obama's vacated Senate seat.

He previously voted to end the policy barring gays from openly serving in the military, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and is a lead co-sponsor of a bill to ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He also supported Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady after Brady announced his support for same-sex marriage earlier this year, drawing the ire of his party's social conservative wing. When some members of the state central committee attempted to oust Brady, Kirk said Brady had his full support.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on April 02, 2013, 03:13:15 pm
HIV-positive Magic Johnson is so proud of his gay son!  ::)

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/magic-johnson-son-e-j-gay-parents-love-155040567--nba.html (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/magic-johnson-son-e-j-gay-parents-love-155040567--nba.html)

Quote
"Cookie and I love E.J. and support him in every way," Magic Johnson told TMZ in a statement. "We're very proud of him."


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 02, 2013, 04:19:04 pm
HIV-positive Magic Johnson is so proud of his gay son!  ::)

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/magic-johnson-son-e-j-gay-parents-love-155040567--nba.html (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/magic-johnson-son-e-j-gay-parents-love-155040567--nba.html)


Yeah, it was 22 years ago when MJ announced he was HIV positive, it was HUGE news - now fast-forward to this present day, it just seems like anything, even stuff like this, is acceptable among the mainstream. It's as if modern-day parents like MJ just don't know how to train up their children. And this is also the kind of stuff I see on the modern-day tv show/movie.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 02, 2013, 05:37:22 pm
http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php?action=post;topic=7736.60;num_replies=68
GAY PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TAKES OFFENSIVE TURN
By Cliff Kincaid
 April 2, 2013
 NewsWithViews.com

Offending the moral sensibilities of millions of Americans, Time Magazine is featuring cover stories showing two white homosexual couples kissing. The Right Scoop blog ran a “censored version of the offensive covers.”
Link: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/04/02/kincaid-gay-propaganda-campaign-takes-offensive-turn/?current=1

John Aravosis, the homosexual activist who runs Americablog.com, said this is part of a propaganda campaign to normalize homosexuality. He said, “The kiss has been quite a powerful political weapon in the gay arsenal for a while now. And checking our archives, it’s rather amazing how important the ‘gay kiss’ has been to our political struggle over the years.”

The purpose is to desensitize people to homosexuality and increase acceptance of the lifestyle.

Media bias is also evident in the influence of the media-funded National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA).

The NLGJA says coverage of the homosexual marriage debate before the Supreme Court was “balanced—supportive even,” and that program hosts “felt compelled to disagree with them [opponents of homosexual marriage] on air.”

We noted the media’s failure to cover the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C.

On the Time cover photos, the NLGJA said, “The black-and-white photos are an interesting, provocative selection. The magazine didn’t opt for family photos of smiling, nonthreatening gay and lesbian families and their kids: It went for the part of same-sex marriage that may be most off-putting to mainstream cultures. The kissing, the sexuality. It’s a bold choice for a mainstream publication to make.”

Regarding the story itself, the NLGJA said it “was largely positive, save for a colorful sentence about AIDS and bathhouses.”

The offensive phrase was that the deadly disease AIDS was “burning outward from the bathhouses…” These are places where anonymous gay sex is common. Homosexuals are determined to keep coverage of the health hazards of homosexuality out of mainstream media.

On his Reliable Sources program, supposedly devoted to media criticism, host Howard Kurtz featured two homosexual rights supporters, John Aravosis and Jennifer Rubin, who writes “The Right Turn” blog for The Washington Post.

Nevertheless, he noted the bias in the coverage, explaining that “Liberal commentators are thrilled that the marriage debate is swinging their way, at least in the court of public opinion, while many conservative pundits were muted or surprisingly supportive.” He cited Bill O’Reilly of Fox News declaring that “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” and dismissing opponents as Bible-thumpers.

The latter was apparently a reference to the Christian teaching that marriage involves a man and a woman and that homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible because it is unnatural and sinful.

Rush Limbaugh countered: “So how many of you who watch Fox are Bible thumpers? Do you think there are any Bible thumpers, quote/unquote, that watch Fox? Because last night you were sort of marginalized on [O’Reilly’s show] The Factor as not having a compelling argument and just being a bunch of Bible thumpers.” >:(

Limbaugh also noted the influence of the “Gay Mafia,” which he described as “the activist homosexual lobby” contributing “big bucks” to the Democratic Party, and leading the campaign for homosexual marriage.

Interestingly, it was Time Magazine which ran a 2008 story, “The Gay Mafia That’s Redefining Liberal Politics.” One of the rich members of the group was identified as Timothy Gill of Denver, the founder of Quark, Inc., a computer software company and a tech multimillionaire, who says he has singlehandedly “invested more than $220 million” in the cause of homosexual rights through his Gill Foundation.

An earlier 2007 Time story, “The Gay Mogul Changing U.S. Politics,” estimated his fortune at $425 million. Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli compared Gill to George Soros: “What you have are extremely wealthy individuals who aren’t personally interested in running for anything but have this tremendous passion. Like George Soros, Tim Gill is actually changing the political landscape

But Soros, too, has a big hand in changing the landscape for the benefit of the homosexuals. In 2009 he financed the “New Beginning Initiative” to encourage the Obama Administration to make “policy changes” to benefit the homosexual movement.

The Gill Foundation is also behind “OutGiving,” which claims to have “provided unique opportunities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and allied donors to gather in a private setting to engage in conversation with each other and with respected LGBT and allied leaders about ways to advance equality through philanthropy.” OutGiving says it has “inspired hundreds of donors to give more strategically and more generously to improve the lives of LGBT [Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people across the country and around the world.”

The biannual OutGiving Conference is said to be “geared toward individuals whose annual philanthropy exceeds $25,000 and who are interested in increasing the effectiveness of their giving in support of the LGBT movement.”

They are meeting in Chicago, Illinois this week. However, the event is by “invitation-only,” and “private,” and “no media are permitted.”

Don’t look for the homosexuals in the media to blow their cover.

Media bias is also evident in the fact that 13 of the top 15 newspapers in the country have editorialized their support for homosexual marriage. The pro-homosexual American Foundation for Equal Rights identified these publications as:

• USA Today
• The New York Times
• Los Angeles Times
• San Jose Mercury News
• The Washington Post
• Daily News
• Chicago Tribune
• Chicago Sun-Times
• The Dallas Morning News
• Houston Chronicle
• The Philadelphia Inquirer
• The Arizona Republic
• The Denver Post
[/size]

The homosexual movement senses victory is just around the corner. And Limbaugh himself says federal approval of homosexual marriage may be “inevitable.” But referring to the group’s March 26 March for Marriage, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage said, “Forget the media hype and confusion, our numbers today show that the American people are strongly pro-marriage and pro-marriage Americans aren’t going anywhere. This is the beginning of the fight to protect marriage. Our opponents know this, which is why they are hoping the Supreme Court will cut short a debate they know they will ultimately lose if the political process and democracy are allowed to run their course. Those who believe that marriage is the unique and special union of one man and one woman are on the right side of history.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 03, 2013, 06:38:28 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gay-couples-employers-could-face-legal-maze-supreme-094406233--politics.html
4/3/13
Gay couples, employers could face legal maze if Supreme Court strikes down DOMA

If, as many legal experts predict, the Defense of Marriage Act is struck down by the Supreme Court, advocates behind the decadeslong movement for gay rights will have won a major victory. But the decision could also create a dense legal maze for gay and lesbian married couples, one that would surely lead to more lawsuits that could make their way back to the Supreme Court.

And striking down DOMA would not just affect same-sex couples, but their employers. Basically, said Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at UCLA School of Law, the result could be a “mess.”

The problem resides in conflicting state gay marriage laws and how the federal government would interpret them. Last week, the court heard arguments about whether Section 3 of DOMA—which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages—is unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally the court’s swing vote, seemed inclined to strike down the statute on the grounds that it interferes with states' rights to define marriage, raising hopes among gay rights groups that thousands of married same-sex couples will be able to access the federal benefits of marriage for the first time.

If DOMA is struck down, then same-sex couples residing in states that allow gay marriage will suddenly be included in the more than 1,100 federal laws that give benefits to married couples. Gay couples, for instance, could file jointly on their tax returns, apply for Social Security survivor benefits if their spouse dies, and take up to 12 weeks off to care for a sick family member without fear of losing their job under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

But what about a gay couple that gets married in New York and then moves back to North Carolina, or any other of the 38 states that have explicitly banned gay marriage?

At first glance, it appears they would have no access to these rights, and that their marriage would not be recognized either by their state or the federal government
. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked attorney Roberta Kaplan, who was arguing against DOMA, this very question. Alito asked whether a New York gay couple who moved to North Carolina could qualify for the same federal estate tax breaks that heterosexual married couples enjoy if one spouse dies.

"Our position is only with respect to the nine states ... that recognize these marriages," Kaplan responded.

In Kaplan's version of events, the Supreme Court could strike down DOMA and essentially create two different worlds for gay married couples in the country. In a handful of states, gay couples would enjoy all the benefits of heterosexual couples, but if they moved to the majority of the states in the union, their marriage would effectively disappear—for both federal and state purposes.

But Zasloff doesn’t think that will pass muster. He predicts same-sex couples would sue the government, arguing that this policy violates their constitutional right to travel. (In the past, the Supreme Court has struck down states’ waiting periods for new residents to enroll in welfare programs, holding that they violated the right of interstate travel.) Same-sex couples could also make a broader legal argument that the federal government should define “marriage” based on where a couple got married, not where they currently live
.


The Supreme Court could sidestep this inevitable legal battle by explicitly noting whether the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages if the couples are no longer living in states that issued their license. But some experts say don’t count on it.

Andrew Koppelman, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, says he would be "astonished" if the Supreme Court clarified the issue in its opinion. Zasloff agrees, noting that Kennedy, who will most likely write the DOMA opinion if it is struck down, is known for his sphinxlike unwillingness to expound upon the details in his opinions.

That would leave broad discretion to the Obama administration to define the issue administratively, Koppelman says. The White House could direct federal agencies like the IRS to accept marriages based on where a couple got married, not where they live.

Should the Supreme Court justices spell out that same-sex marriages are not valid in states that don't recognize them, the legal differences between married same-sex couples in different parts of the country would be stark.

Under that scenario, Todd Solomon, a partner at the Chicago law firm McDermott Will & Emery, who focuses on employee benefits issues, predicts a gay-couple migration to the nine states (and the District of Columbia) that allow the unions, since Social Security, tax and other federal benefits are at stake.

Cathy Stamm, a consultant at Mercer, a human resources firm, said employers are also anxious to see what the Supreme Court will decide. She's advising firms to comb through their benefit plans that involve employees' spouses—anything from health insurance to pension plans to employee discounts—to figure out whether state or federal law will require them to cover same-sex spouses if DOMA is struck down. Solomon predicts that employees in same-sex marriages may sue employers if they deny certain benefits to their spouses if this happens.

Employers might face a particularly tricky situation if they’re based in an area that allows same-sex marriage but their employees commute in from a state that does not. So, for example, would an employee with a same-sex spouse be eligible to take 12 weeks of family leave if he or she lives in Virginia but works in D.C.? Even though Virginia doesn't allow same-sex marriage, most labor laws are based on where the place of work is, so there's no simple answer. Stamm says employers hope the Supreme Court will help them avoid this legal thicket.

"There's a lot of confusion about what employers need to do," Stamm said. "I think employers would welcome some guidance from the court when they provide their ruling."


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 05, 2013, 09:46:15 pm
I know this is nothing but a dog and pony show, but nonetheless Ben Carson is a self-professing "conservative Christian" who is playing his part misleading his followers(ie-some think somehow he'll bring hope to America if he runs for Prez in 2016), and it's one of these "be ye angry and sin not..." moments for me.

http://news.yahoo.com/ben-carson-apologizes-homosexuality-223414682--abc-news-politics.html
4/5/13
Ben Carson Apologizes For Comment on Homosexuality

Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon and recent star of the conservative movement, has apologized for comments on homosexuality that had Johns Hopkins students clamoring for his ouster as their commencement speaker.

"Although I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, there are much less offensive ways to make that point," Carson wrote in a letter to the Hopkins community. "I hope all will look at a lifetime of service over some poorly chosen words."

During a March 26 TV interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity, Carson compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia in explaining his view that "marriage" can only describe a heterosexual relationship.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman, it's a well established fundamental pillar of society," Carson told Hannity. "And no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition, so it's not something that's against gays, it's agianst anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society-it has significant ramifications."

**nothing wrong with what he said here. ???

That comment had roiled some students, ahead of his scheduled commencement address at Hopkins' medical-school graduation ceremony.

"We retain the highest respect for Dr. Carson's achievements and value his right to publicly voice political views. Nevertheless, we feel that these expressed values are incongruous with the values of Johns Hopkins and deeply offensive to a large proportion our student body," the Health and Human Rights Student Group wrote on its Facebook page, asking the school to "select an alternative speaker."

Today, Dean of medical Faculty Paul Rothman called the comments "offensive" in an open letter and announced that faculty would meet with graduating students to discuss the matter. Carson, meanwhile, apologized.

"Controversial social issues are debated in the media on a regular basis, and yet it is rare that leaders of an academic medical center will join that type of public debate," Rothman wrote. "However, we recognize that tension now exists in our community because hurtful, offensive language was used by our colleague, Dr. Ben Carson, when conveying a personal opinion. Dr. Carson's comments are inconsistent with the culture of our institution."

*Again, what was so "offensive" over what he said? ???

Carson had previously told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that his words were "completely taken out of context and completely misunderstood," while also offering the semi-apology, "If anyone was offended, I apologize to you" and noting that, as a Christian, he loves all people, including gays. ::)

Today, he offered a fuller version in a letter to the Hopkins community:

Dear Colleagues, Friends and Associates:

As you know, I have been in the national news quite a bit recently and my 36 year association with Johns Hopkins has unfortunately dragged our institution into the spotlight as well. I am sorry for any embarrassment this has caused. But what really saddens me is that my poorly chosen words caused pain for some members of our community and for that I offer a most sincere and heartfelt apology. Hurting others is diametrically opposed to who I am and what I believe. There are many lessons to be learned when venturing into the political world and this is one I will not forget. Although I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, there are much less offensive ways to make that point. I hope all will look at a lifetime of service over some poorly chosen words.

Sincerely yours,

Benjamin S Carson Sr MD

Carson has been a rising conservative star. At the National Prayer Breakfast in March, with President Obama seated just feet away from him, Carson delivered a speech in which he criticized political correctness and called for private health savings accounts to address health-care spending. His address prompted The Wall Street Journal to publish an editorial entitled,  "Ben Carson for President," and the neurosurgeon delivered a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference later last month.

**If Carson is some "conservative Christian", then what in the world is he doing attending an OBAMA function? Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers...


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 05, 2013, 09:59:18 pm
On a side note - Ben Carson's "raised up during his childhood" is yet another "rags to riches" story we've heard 100s of times with other celebrities, politicians, etc. It's just the same 'ole "grew up poor, struggled to make friends and struggled in school, but overcame all odds to be where he is" generic storyline.

Pt being that sometimes you wonder if these people are really are who they are. For example, they said the same storyline about Bill Clinton when he first ran for President, but they forgot to mention how he was a member of the Order of DeMolay(Freemasons for young boys).

Anyhow - these high profile people that are labeled as "Christians" make me "be ye angry and sin not..." b/c they are not setting an example at all for their followers, but somehow Churchianity continues to look up to these people. If Carson ends up losing his job and everything else he has over what he said, then so be it, b/c if he's a born again believer, he's already been given the promise and hope of eternal life.

Mark 10:28  Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
Mar 10:29  And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Mar 10:30  But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Mar 10:31  But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.



Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 08, 2013, 01:28:26 pm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-gay-marriage-0408-20130408,0,7995309.story
4/8/13
Illinois GOP state lawmaker backs same-sex marriage bill

State Rep. Ed Sullivan Jr. of Mundelein said Sunday he will support a bill to allow gay marriage in Illinois, becoming the second House Republican to do so and first among leadership.

Sullivan, who is chairman of the House Republican campaign organization, said his decision to back same-sex marriage represented a personal and family evolution on the issue. Previously an opponent of civil unions, Sullivan told the Tribune that his mother-in-law, who lives in the southwest suburbs, has been in a same-sex relationship.

"The first reaction from people might be, 'Well he might be voting for that just because of his mother-in-law,'" Sullivan said. "The reality is, because my mother-in-law is gay, I have more of an understanding and familiarity with same-sex couples."

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 09, 2013, 02:36:20 pm
 ::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mn8Mo9dOoo

Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2  And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Title: Montana votes to strike down law criminalizing 'deviate' gay sex
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 11, 2013, 04:29:55 pm
Montana votes to strike down law criminalizing 'deviate' gay sex
4/11/13
Montana lawmakers have voted to get rid of a law that criminalizes gay sex and the governor is expected to sign it -- which would leave 11 states where such statutes remain on the books.

The Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional a decade ago, rendering them unenforceable, but gay rights advocates say they support their removal due to the stigmatizing language.

With a 65-34 vote on Wednesday, the bill was shuttled off to Gov. Steve Bullock, who is likely to sign it, his spokeswoman, Judy Beck, told NBC News. Montana's Supreme Court struck down the law in 1997, but a block of Republican lawmakers had stymied efforts to repeal it, the Billings Gazette reported.

“It’s not about encouraging a lifestyle,” Rep. Bryce Bennett, D-Missoula, an openly gay Montana lawmaker, was quoted as saying Tuesday by the newspaper. “It’s simply about respecting privacy between two adults. … It’s just as simple as saying that all Montanans deserve dignity and respect.”

The old law made “deviate sexual conduct,” or sexual relations between people of the same sex, a crime. Those convicted of it faced a prison term of up to ten years and/or a maximum $50,000 fine.

The Supreme Court in 2003 ruled that a Texas state law criminalizing gay sex was unconstitutional, thereby striking down some 14 active anti-sodomy laws on the books in other states and Puerto Rico.

"As a matter of law, sodomy laws, as they apply to same-sex couples and in some states different sex couples, were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in our 2003 lawsuit Lawrence v. Texas," Susam Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal, said in a statement.

Nonetheless, Montana's repeal "goes a long way in building a supportive environment for LGBT people and their families," she added, noting that the ongoing presence elsewhere of "these unconstitutional laws in state penal codes implicitly stigmatizes gay people and puts them and many others at risk of unlawful prosecutions. It is time every state cleans up its books and cleans up its act."

Eleven states still have laws on their books outlawing oral and anal sex between same-sex couples, while another nine have statutes outlawing oral and anal sex for everyone, according to Lambda Legal.

The 2003 Supreme Court case has been cited by pro-gay marriage supporters in arguments before the high court on whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed. The court is expected to rule in those cases in June.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17705370-montana-votes-to-strike-down-law-criminalizing-deviate-gay-sex?lite


Title: Delaware, the Next State to Legalize Gay Marriage?
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 11, 2013, 11:46:35 pm
Delaware: The Next Blue State to Move on Marriage Equality
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/11/delaware_the_next_blue_state_to_move_on_marriage_equality.html
4/11/13

Last year, as more states legalized gay marriage legislatively or at the polls, those of us armed with maps had a question: What about Delaware? The First State, of which I am a son, is a moderate place that's swung Democratic as the GOP has swung to the right. Starting with the 2008 Obama-Biden wave, it's also been completely controlled by Democrats. The current state House has a 26-15 Democratic majority; the current state Senate is split 13-8 for the Democrats. Gov. Jack Markell has supported gay marriage for years. And I already mentioned Joe Biden.

Well, the gay marriage push starts today. This afternoon, most of the state's leadership—governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state Senate president, speaker of the House—will gather in Wilmington to announce legislation that would legalize gay marriage. All they need to do is alter Delaware's statute on marriage, which prohibits unions between "people of the same gender." (Delaware never got onboard with the "traditional marriage amendment" party.)

Sen. Chris Coons has been working the phones and meeting with legislators and "community leaders" who could take sides when the bill comes up. "Some of them don't support marriage equality and have strong reservations for a variety of reasons," he said. "Because of their district, because of their background, their faith tradition. You know, many them are reconsidering after hearing from their constituents, or after seeing the movement nationally toward marriage equality. Some have a personal experience with a family member, a neighbor, a colleague who speaks to them personally." If a vote came after a "broad, robust debate followed by a strong vote in both chambers," Coons didn't see any chance of a backslide, or of primary challenges and election losses leading to a reversal. "We'll be a state whose legal committment to marriage is strong."



Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on April 12, 2013, 04:37:24 am
Quote
You know, many them are reconsidering after hearing from their constituents,

Yeah, whatever!  ::)

Since when do politicians actually listen to their constituents?

Politicians don't listen, they TELL their constituents how it's going to be, and the public just takes it, like a sheep to the slaughter.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 12, 2013, 11:28:58 am
http://www.nomblog.com/34377/
NEW Marriage ADA Video: A Warning for Parents and Educators!
April 12, 2013 at 11:25 am

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Third grade classrooms having pretend same-sex weddings… textbooks featuring pictures of cross-dressing carpenters… children being taught that there are "six genders."

Quote
"If same-sex marriage is passed in your state, your children—your grandchildren—will be exposed to the same kind of instruction."

That's what educator and marriage supporter Phil Lees says in our latest Marriage ADA interview.

He worked for years in the public education system in Ontario, Canada, and saw first-hand—only one year after same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005—18 school boards in Ontario instituting school curricula that affirmed and promoted LGBT "values," including same-sex marriage.

Phil's story needs to be spread far and wide. In every place where NOM has fought the legalization of same-sex marriage here in the United States, our opponents have falsely promised that it will not affect the innocence of children.

But in every place marriage has been redefined, we have seen a powerful movement begin to use the schools to teach children about same-sex unions, intentionally confusing them about the unique and complimentary role of mothers and fathers.

Supporter, as this educator points out, one of the problems is that people of faith sometimes withdraw from the system and cede control to activists bent on promoting values that we know to be harmful to children and to society.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 15, 2013, 11:52:04 am
When I was reading this article over the weekend, the Lord brought to mind this passage...

Ezekiel 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Eze 16:50  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.


Back in 2004 when I watched a lot of the Presidential election coverage, CNN's Paul Zahn went to interview some South Carolina SBC pastor(in her coverage of evangelicals and politics). I wasn't saved then, but just something looked very wrong with what these "evangelicals" were doing - just to sum it up, it was as if they were lifted up with too much pride and self-righteousness, including the SC pastor she interviewed(ie-he acted like he and evangelicals were better than everyone just b/c they voted Republican on the sole basis of protecting the unborn and marriage).

Anyhow, when you look at the Ezekiel 16:49-50 passage closely - yes, Sodom talks a lot about the widespread homosexuality across the land, but in this particular passage when they talk about pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness...doesn't it kind of remind you of these self-professing modern-day "evangelicals" who are indirectly playing their part in worsening this agenda?

And then this article over teen beauty pageant contestant who's openly gay...in a state that PRIDES itself in embracing socially conservative issues...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307686/Lesbian-19-Mexican-father-African-American-mother-wins-South-Carolina-beauty-pageant.html
Lesbian beauty queen, 19, with Mexican father and African-American mother competes for Miss South Carolina crown

Annalouisa Valenica has won the title in her local town of Lyman
She came out in the 9th grade and has been in a relationship for 3 years
South Carolina does not recognize same-sex marriage or hate-crime protections for gay people


A teenage lesbian with a Mexican father and an African-American mother is hoping to win the Miss Carolina crown when she competes at the contest this summer.

Analouisa Valencia, 19, is hoping to rattle the pageant stereotypes by becoming the first lesbian in her conservative home state to take the crown, before heading to the national competition.

She has already scored the title in her home town of Lyman and believes it was a victory for equality. Now she wants to take the issues center stage in the state competition in July.

'I want to show the judges who I really am,' she told CNN. 'I want to show them how passionate I am about my platform, how passionate I am for being an advocate for equality.'

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 19, 2013, 12:52:43 pm
Unsurprisingly, it all roots back to the love of money...

4/19/13
Which Industries Stand to Benefit From Same-Sex Marriage?

The LGBT community has serious buying power -- nearly $800 billion worth in this country alone. That kind of capital is a motivating factor that might just turn the bigotry tide.

While gay marriage still has half of the Supreme Court’s robes in a bunch and Catholic bishops hunkered in total prayer and meat-fasting mode, more civilized parts of the world like, oh say, Uruguay have found themselves on the side of civil rights -- and laughing all the way to the bank.

Until recently, same-sex marriage proponents have largely focused the upsides of legalization -- aside from keeping the Constitution constitutional -- in terms of the personal, social, and cultural benefits of taking part in the institution. For those in society unmoved by the touchy-feely appeals, here’s a motivating factor that might just turn the bigotry tide: money.

The LGBT community has serious buying power -- some nearly $800 billion worth, in fact, in this country alone. When legalized marriage is open to this demographic, whole industries and institutions get to dip into its collective cookie jar. Minyanville is here to tell you which ones will benefit the most.

Wedding Tourism

Some of the most obvious and immediate beneficiaries of the same-sex walk down the aisle are the myriad enterprises that play a part -- both directly and indirectly -- in the wedding industry. Within the first year of enacting the Marriage Equality Act in June 2011, New York City’s economy got a $259 million boost -- well on its way to surpassing the $400 million the State’s Senate Independent Democratic Conference had projected over the first three years combined.

Through spending in area hotels, restaurants, catering halls, bridal boutiques, beauty salons and suppliers, caterers, etc. and the resulting tax revenue, gay and lesbian marriage made enough money to pay the city’s parks and recreation budget for the year (or to buy each resident three Big Gulps). 2013 is expected to raise $300,000 just in marriage licenses and ceremony fees.

Let’s not forget large, public companies like hotel chains, rental car agencies, jewelers, and big box wedding registry retailers that wouldn’t have otherwise been patronized.

Minivan and SUV Manufacturers

Love. Marriage. Baby carriage. Minivan.

In researching the purchasing decisions of people in their child-rearing years (ages 28-45), TrueCar.com foundgay wedding gay marriage same sex marriage business that the family roadster is still the auto of choice. “Generation X buyers... chose cars that were comfortable and convenient for their lifestyle," said analyst Kristen Andersson. “They chose larger, more luxurious cars to take their families on vacations or kids to play soccer with ample room to store equipment and luggage.”

Of the top ten models purchased by this demographic, only two -- the BMW M3 Sedan and Chevrolet (NYSE:GM) Aveo -- didn’t fall into the minivan or SUV category. The Volkswagen (PINK:VLKAY) Routan, Nissan Quest and Armada, Honda (NYSE:HMC) Odyssey, Toyota (NYSE:TM) Land Cruiser and Sienna, Volvo XC90, and Infiniti QX56, respectively, comprised the rest of the list.

In addition to higher profit margins for automakers, bigger cars generally mean less fuel efficiency and costlier insurance premiums -- a boon to both the Exxons and Geicos of the economy. 

Speaking of insurance, Progressive (NYSE:PGR) et al.’s same-sex marriage payday isn’t limited to its auto arm. The life and term insurance business largely relies on partnering up -- unless the majority of policyholders are eccentrics who are leaving everything to the local research institute on captive parrot breeding. 

Real Estate and Home Improvement

Another fairly predictable corollary to settling down is, literally, settling down. According to 2012 data from the National Association of Realtors, 65% of homeowners are married couples. Down the aisle to over the threshold has been a societal procession for generations and there’s no evidence to suggest those in same-sex relationships would deviate from that custom.

Moreover, gay and lesbian homeowners invest more in maintaining and improving their properties. In 2009, during the height of the economic downturn, a national consumer survey found the demographic spent twice as much as its straight neighbors on renovations, reporting higher rates of purchase at Home Depot (NYSE:HD) Lowe’s (NYSE:LOW), Sears (NASDAQ:SHLD), Best Buy (NYSE:BBY), and Costco (NASDAQ:COST).

“Gay men and lesbians have a reputation of being major home improvement shoppers and this survey reaffirms that," said Matt Tumminello, president of marketing firm Target 10. “Renovating and refurbishing homes is in many ways a part of gay culture. Even in bad economic times, they are not stopping.”

Read more: http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/Which-Industries-Stand-to-Benefit-From/4/19/2013/id/49290?page=full#ixzz2Qvsj1bh9


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 19, 2013, 01:04:01 pm
Heb 13:5  Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Prov_8:11  For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

Prov_20:15  There is gold, and a multitude of rubies: but the lips of knowledge are a precious jewel.


Job_28:18  No mention shall be made of coral, or of pearls: for the price of wisdom is above rubies.

Also - other professions will likely profit from this too - Accountants, depending on the situations, they're going to have more to work with. Ie-if the USSC strikes down DOMA and merely rules SSM is a states right, then Accountants will have their hands full, let's say, in Oklahoma if they do taxes for a SSM couple relocating from California b/c they employment moved them(they can file MFJ federal, but b/c OK has anti-SSM laws, for state they have to file MFS or S each). This is going to create much more work and confusion. OR if the USSC rules to make SSM a constitutional right altogether, they're still going to have more to work with as they get more SSM clients asking for more MFJ benefits in the tax codes.

Attorneys - for similar reasons presented as Accountants.

AND...last but not least, 501c3 churches, why? B/c having a 501c3 means they get other tax benefits for having weddings, funerals, and other similar functions at their churches. Especially with our economy being in the worst shape since the Great Depression, you can bet these churches will be desperate. Ultimately, I don't think the government will force, per se, these churches to perform SSMs.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 25, 2013, 10:46:15 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/del-nj-ill-next-gay-marriage-battlegrounds-193018906.html;_ylt=AwrNUbKX93lRd30Axt7QtDMD
Del., NJ, Ill. next gay marriage battlegrounds
4/25/13

Rhode Island is set to become the 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry following a key vote in the state's General Assembly this week. Gay marriage supporters are shifting their focus to other states, including:

—Delaware. The state's House approved a bill Tuesday legalizing same-sex marriage on a 23-18 vote. The bill now moves to the Senate. It has the support of Democratic Gov. Jack Markell. Delaware approved same-sex civil unions last year.

—New Jersey. The Democratic-led legislature is expected to attempt to override Republican Gov. Chris Christie's veto of gay marriage legislation a year ago. But there aren't enough Democrats to guarantee an override, and Christie has suggested putting the question before voters.

—Oregon. Gay marriage advocates hope to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the 2014 ballot that would reverse a ban on gay marriage passed by voters in 2004. The effort has the support of Gov. John Kitzhaber.

—Minnesota. Hundreds of gay marriage supporters gathered at the state Capitol this month to urge lawmakers to vote for gay marriage. Legislation has cleared committees in both the House and Senate.

—Illinois. The state's Senate approved gay marriage legislation on Valentine's Day. Supporters in the House say they're still a few votes short but hope a vote is held before the General Assembly adjourns this spring. Gov. Pat Quinn supports the bill.


Title: New conservative lobbying push for gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 27, 2013, 01:22:02 pm
It's not so much that this is part of the dog and pony show - but ultimately, Churchianity is mostly to blame for this as well, b/c even though they have the outward appearance of supporting pro-life and pro-family, the big message that comes out of them is how "We need to bring back this robust economy to this once blessed nation!".

It was no different when Al Gore said in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid!".

New conservative lobbying push for gay marriage
4/27/13
http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-lobbying-push-gay-marriage-050802280.html

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A national group of prominent GOP donors that supports gay marriage is pouring new money into lobbying efforts to get Republican lawmakers to vote to make it legal.

American Unity PAC was formed last year to lend financial support to Republicans who bucked the party's longstanding opposition to gay marriage. Its founders are launching a new lobbying organization, American Unity Fund, and already have spent more than $250,000 in Minnesota, where the Legislature could vote on the issue as early as next week.

The group has spent $500,000 on lobbying since last month, including efforts in Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia and Utah.

Billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer launched American Unity PAC. The lobbying effort is the next phase as the push for gay marriage spreads to more states, spokesman Jeff Cook-McCormac told The Associated Press.

"What you have is this network of influential Republicans who really want to see the party embrace the freedom to marry, and believe it's not only the right thing for the country but also good politics," Cook-McCormac said.

In Minnesota, the money has gone to state groups that are lobbying Republican lawmakers and for polling on gay marriage in a handful of suburban districts held by Republicans. So far, only one Minnesota Republican lawmaker has committed to voting to legalize gay marriage: Sen. Branden Petersen, of Andover.

"I think there will be some more. There are legislators out there that are struggling with this," said Carl Kuhl, a former political aide to former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman and Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Kuhl's public affairs firm is contracted by Minnesotans United, the lead lobby group for gay marriage in Minnesota and main recipient of American Unity's Minnesota spending.

Gay marriage's fate in Minnesota may rest with the House, where support is seen as shakier than in the Senate. A handful of votes from Republicans could put it over the top. Nearly two dozen House Republicans represent more socially moderate suburbs and might be candidates to vote yes.

House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said he has encouraged advocates of the marriage bill to round up Republican votes, if nothing else than to send a message to Minnesota residents that it's not a partisan proposition. But that will be politically risky; the main opposition group to same-sex marriage, Minnesota for Marriage, has said it will seek consequences for Republicans who stray on gay marriage.

Part of American Unity PAC's original mission was to spend money on behalf of Republican gay marriage supporters. Many GOP lawmakers have faced primary challenges funded in part by anti-gay marriage groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, which argue that the lawmakers had betrayed the party's core principles.

Since forming the lobby group last month, American Unity also spent money to win over Republican lawmakers in Rhode Island, where last week all five Republicans in the state Senate jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon. Rhode Island is on track to legalize gay marriage by next week, which would make it the 11th U.S. state where gay marriage is legal
.

There are also plans to lobby federal lawmakers on gay rights issues.

"We intend to work on this effort until every American citizen is treated equally under the law," Cook-McCormac said. Other wealthy, traditionally Republican donors giving money to the group include Seth Klarman, David Herro and Cliff Asness.

Though only one current GOP officeholder in Minnesota is on record supporting gay marriage, a handful of prominent Republicans have spoken out in favor of it. They include former state auditor Pat Anderson and Brian McClung, who was spokesman for former Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Prominent Republican donors including former politician Wheelock Whitney and businesswoman Marilyn Carlson Nelson have also lent support and donated money.

Since it first formed to campaign against last fall's gay marriage ban and then shifted to pushing for its legalization at the Capitol, Minnesotans United has been building Republican alliances, hiring multiple lobbyists with Republican ties.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 03, 2013, 01:23:21 pm
Rhode Island legalizes same-sex marriage: Which states are next?

One state could take the plunge as early as next week

5/2/13
http://theweek.com/article/index/243674/rhode-island-legalizes-same-sex-marriage-which-states-will-be-next

Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I) on Thursday night will sign into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, making that state the tenth in the nation to do so. [UPDATE: Chafee signed the bill Thursday on the steps of the State House.]

Chafee has already said he will sign the measure, which cleared a procedural vote in the state's General Assembly earlier on Thursday. In addition to Rhode Island and nine other states, the District of Columbia also allows same-sex marriages.

Yet Rhode Island's achievement could soon be old hat. A handful of other states are on track to legalize gay marriage — including one that could do so within weeks.

DELAWARE
The Delaware State Senate will vote next week on a marriage equality bill. A Senate subcommittee voted yesterday to send the bill to the full Senate, where Democrats hold a 13-8 advantage, making final passage likely.

The House passed the bill last week, and Gov. Jack Markell (D) has already said he'll sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

NEW JERSEY
Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed a gay marriage bill last February, but the state legislature has indicated it will try to override his veto. Supporters would need to entice a few more votes in the Senate and about a dozen more in the Assembly for that to happen.

At the same time, Christie has suggested putting the issue on a ballot for voters to decide. A recent Quinnipiac poll found voters there overwhelmingly in support of same-sex marriage, by a 64-30 percent margin.

MINNESOTA
Minnesotans last year defeated a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage. The state may now go one step further by legalizing gay marriage, but through the legislature this time.

Minnesota's House and Senate are expected to begin discussing marriage equality measures shortly, with Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL) pressing lawmakers to pass the a legalization bill this year.

ILLINOIS
The Illinois Senate passed a bill in February that would legalize gay marriage, but the House has yet to vote on it, as supporters try to scratch together enough votes to secure passage. The bill has the backing of Gov. Pat Quinn (D), who said last month he was "really optimistic we're within striking distance" of legalization.

OREGON
While a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is still on the books, supporters of marriage equality are aiming to undo that. The state's leading gay rights group, Basic Right Oregon, is collecting signatures to place marriage equality on the ballot in 2014.

Polls have shown voters generally in favor of reversing the ban, which was passed in 2004. The New York Times' polling guru Nate Silver estimated recently that 54 percent of voters there would have backed a theoretical marriage equality ballot initiative last year.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 04, 2013, 12:38:07 pm
Read the news article - the Dallas mayor actually DOES support same-sex marriage. IOW, his "I don't want to discuss it BUT I support it" is nothing but Dialectic babble.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20130501-dallas-mayor-says-gay-marriage-resolution-is-a-poor-use-of-city-councils-time.ece
Dallas mayor says gay-marriage resolution is a poor use of City Council’s time
5/1/13

A proposed resolution supporting gay marriage is a political distraction and a misuse of the Dallas City Council’s time, Mayor Mike Rawlings said Wednesday.

Council member Scott Griggs is behind the resolution, which calls for equal marital rights for same-sex couples. He got the signatures needed from fellow council members to place the matter on an upcoming agenda. And he says he has the votes to pass it.

“It’s timely, and it’s relevant,” Griggs said. “The LGBT community is not only a big part of Oak Cliff, but a big part of Dallas.” Griggs, who represents parts of Oak Cliff, is running for election on May 11 to a different council seat, a result of the council’s redrawing of district boundaries. His opponent in the race is a fellow incumbent, Delia Jasso.

Rawlings emphasized that he is “an unequivocal supporter of marriage equality.” But he said the City Council shouldn’t spend its time debating political matters over which it has no authority.

“To do this for what seem to be political purposes is not good judgment,” he said.

Rawlings said he also doesn’t want the City Council “talking about late-term abortions, or gun control, or Gitmo,” an informal name for the U.S. military detention center at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

As the mayor observed, the debate over same-sex marriage is not one that will be resolved at the municipal level. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases dealing with the issue and has an opportunity, through its rulings, to determine the law of the land.

One case pending before the high court is a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That 1996 statute says marriage, for purposes of federal law, is defined solely as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

The other case involves a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment enacted by voters in 2008 that similarly limits marriage to unions between one man and one woman.

In response to the mayor’s criticism, Griggs said simply that he was pleased to hear Rawlings supports marriage rights for same-sex couples. He said he looks forward to passage of his resolution.

That resolution also calls for a ban on workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation — a policy that the city of Dallas has had in place since 2002.


Title: Meet the billionaire hedge fund manager quietly shaping the GOP gay marriage deb
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 07, 2013, 12:31:44 am
Again, it all comes down to the love of money...

Meet the billionaire hedge fund manager quietly shaping the GOP gay marriage debate
5/3/13
A battle within the Republican Party over same-sex marriage is unfolding on two fronts, in public, and behind the scenes. In the latter case, one of the most influential players is a billionaire hedge fund manager largely unknown to those who don’t work in finance or mix with political mega-donors.

That man is Paul E. Singer, who over the years has used his wealth to spur Republicans to support gay marriage laws. Now, Singer is expanding his reach with the creation of an advocacy group which aims to spend millions influencing the legislative debate over same-sex marriage across the country.

Singer, the 68-year-old founder of Elliott Management Corporation, is not a newcomer to the political battle over gay rights. He coaxed Republican state senators in New York to back a same-sex marriage law in 2011, offering financial cover against backlash stemming from their votes, helping raise six figures for each of them.

The public side of the intra-party debate over gay marriage was visible when Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) declared support for same-sex marriage, setting off a renewed debate about the issue in the GOP. And when the Republican National Committee recently reaffirmed its opposition to gay marriage, it also was plain to see.

Behind the scenes, donors are influencing the debate more quietly. On this second front, it is all about money and organization. And for Singer, it’s about being there financially for Republicans who decide to back same-sex marriage.

Singer declined to be interviewed for this story, but agreed to answer questions via e-mail. He sees donors and politicians, he said, as “complementary forces,” and is signaling to elected officials they will have backup if they decide to support same-sex marriage.

“We are heartened to see many politicians in both parties moving in the right direction on this,” he wrote. “Our job is to let them know they have plenty of like-minded friends, activists and party leaders who will stand with them.”

For Singer, there is a personal connection to the issue. His son is gay, and got married in Massachusetts, something Singer mentioned in a 2010 speech at a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Singer started American Unity PAC in 2012, infusing the operation with a big early donation. The super PAC spent over $2 million on congressional races last cycle, according to data compiled by the Center For Responsive Politics. The group had limited success, backing more losing candidates that winning ones.

Even so, the creation of the PAC offered a new financial vessel for donors looking to protect Republicans friendly to gay rights, serving as a countermeasure to anti-gay marriage groups like the National Organization For Marriage.

Several months ago, Singer laid the groundwork for American Unity Fund, an 501(c)(4) nonprofit affiliated with the super PAC. The effort was officially announced last week. It’s an effort to branch into advocacy and lobbying, and to delve further into legislative battles at the state level.

American Unity Fund has already raised $2 million and plans to raise millions more. It recently found success in Rhode Island, which on Thursday became the 10th state to legalize gay marriage. The group convinced state senate Republicans to support gay marriage there and is also trying to win over Republican lawmakers in Minnesota, where there is a legislative effort to legalize same-sex marriage.

There’s a “sentiment among leading center-right donors that it is important to make a compelling and honest case with why the freedom to marry is consistent with conservative values,” said American Unity Fund spokesman Jeff Cook-McCormac.

Singer has also donated big money over the years to other Republican causes and candidates. He believes supporting gay marriage is wholly consistent with conservatism. He argues for individual freedom when he makes his case. “I believe marriage equality is critical to the future of individual liberty and the strength of the American family, and the Republican Party should stand for both,” said Singer.

But there are many conservatives who aren’t convinced. One need look no further than Portman’s announcement that he supports gay marriage. The news prompted some social conservatives to reaffirm their commitment to marriage as strictly between one man and one woman.

And even as Americans have moved sharply toward favoring same-sex marriage during the last decade, most Republicans remain opposed, polling shows. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News survey, even as the percentage of Republicans who say gay marriage should not be legal has dropped since 2004, most still oppose it.

For Singer, it’s a project that advances in increments. He said he believes that evidence in the states where gay marriage is legal should help convince more conservatives to support it.

“Ultimately, this fight is about basic equality and individual liberty — both conservative principles,” Singer concluded in his e-mail. “But for those who remain unconvinced, state-by-state evidence that marriage equality does no harm and actually strengthens families and the institution of marriage should put doubts to rest and pave the way for more conservatives to join this growing movement.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 13, 2013, 01:26:20 pm
This is getting rather complex, and rather subtlely...apparently, if the USSC rules that Prop 8 has no "standing"(which the majority of justices apparently believe at bare minimum), then either scenerios can happen...1) The CA government can choose to legalize it(or not), 2) It will be punted back to the lower courts there to let them decide, or 3) They can let Prop 8 stand, but the citizens can decide whether or not they want to put it on the ballot to legalize it at the 2014 midterm elections(apparently, support for SSM there has risen to a majority since 2008, when they voted for Prop 8).

Either way, the USSC is going to let a whole new can of worms open up on this issue, and it's going to be one big mess(ie-the Hegelian Dialectic b/w both sides is gonna get very nasty).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-13/gay-marriage-letdown-looms-as-high-court-weighs-narrow-ruling.html
5/13/13
Gay-Marriage Letdown Looms as High Court Weighs Narrow Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court fight over California’s Proposition 8, viewed by gay-rights advocates as a historic opportunity to establish same-sex marriage nationwide, may not even settle the issue in the state.

The justices, who probably will rule next month, signaled during the March 26 argument that they might sidestep the underlying constitutional questions and decide that the defenders of the 2008 gay-marriage ban lacked “standing,” or legal eligibility, to bring the case. That could leave the status of gay marriage in California in doubt, spawn new litigation and perhaps even prompt another ballot initiative.

A standing ruling might mean “a quick death for Prop 8,” said Vikram Amar, a constitutional law professor at the University of California Davis School of Law. “But it’s also quite possible -- maybe more likely -- that it will take some time before we know which couples, beyond the two couples who sued, would be able to get their licenses.”

The issue will loom large as the court nears its decision. It’s the first time the justices have considered whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. While a ruling limited to standing might mean months or even years of uncertainty, a declaration that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional could take effect in as little as 25 days, letting thousands of Californians marry this year.

More than 18,000 same-sex couples got marriage licenses in California in the five months between the state Supreme Court’s ruling that gay marriages were legal and the passage of Proposition 8, which effectively overturned that decision.

First Time
Ten states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriages, with Delaware slated to join the list on July 1. Companies such as Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Morgan Stanley (MS) have urged the Supreme Court to back gay-marriage rights as has the Obama administration.

The standing issue stems from the 2008 decision by Jerry Brown, then California’s attorney general, not to defend Proposition 8 when two same-sex couples sued to overturn it. The initiative’s official sponsors, led by former state Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, took the lead in defending the measure.

The sponsors’ role took on new legal significance after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and barred state officials from enforcing it. The question then became whether the sponsors had the legal right to represent the state’s interests in an appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unclear Path
Supreme Court precedent doesn’t provide a clear answer. Although generally it is the state’s prerogative to decide whether to appeal, and what arguments to make, the high court has let lawmakers represent a state in some contexts. In 1997, the court said it had “grave doubts” that sponsors of an Arizona ballot initiative could file an appeal.

During the March 26 argument, several members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether the Proposition 8 sponsors had standing. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potential swing vote, called the issue “substantial.”

Should the high court rule that the sponsors lacked power to appeal, lawyers for the couples challenging Proposition 8 say the effect would be to legalize gay marriage across the state. They reason that the 9th Circuit ruling would be erased and Walker’s order would be reinstated.

“A win on standing would be a victory that would establish marriage equality and wipe out Prop 8,” said Theodore Boutrous, a Los Angeles lawyer with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. “We would be very happy with that.”

Gay-marriage opponents counter that Walker’s statewide order would have to be set aside as well.

Default Judgment
“We would certainly hope that the Supreme Court would vacate everything that had happened since the beginning of the case,” said Austin Nimocks, a lawyer on the team defending Proposition 8. “If there’s no standing, then there never was an actual case, meaning that there were no legitimate rulings.”

At most, Nimocks says, the two same-sex couples would be entitled to a so-called default judgment, letting them marry without affecting the rest of the state.

At the core of the dispute are questions about the constitutional power of federal judges. Some constitutional law professors, including Marty Lederman of Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, say Walker lacked power to issue a statewide ruling.

“District court judges generally do not have the power to issue injunctions that protect persons other than the parties before them,” Lederman wrote in a post on Scotusblog, which tracks the court.

In Doubt
Even so, it’s not clear anyone would be in position to contest the reach of Walker’s order, says Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine School of Law. He says neither the sponsors of Proposition 8 nor any county official would likely have the legal right to do so.

“The defendants are not going to object to it, and I don’t see who else can do so,” Chemerinsky said in an e-mail.

The justices themselves probably won’t address the scope of Walker’s order, an issue that isn’t directly before them. The Supreme Court could instead return the case to the lower courts, letting the two sides spar there.

California officials might add more wrinkles. The state thus far has enforced Proposition 8, refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses even while opposing the ballot initiative in court. Brown, now the governor, could change that approach after a Supreme Court ruling and direct county clerks begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

Gay-Marriage Support
Should any of those clerks balk, the issue could become further muddled. One county clerk, Chuck Storey of Imperial County along the Mexican border, has already said in court papers that he isn’t sure whether he is bound by Walker’s ruling.

No matter how the Supreme Court rules, same-sex marriage in California may be inevitable. Californians back gay nuptials by almost 2-1, according to a Field Poll taken in February. Should the high court ruling uphold Proposition 8, or leave its status uncertain, gay-marriage supporters could put the issue back on the ballot in 2014.

Boutrous, the lawyer challenging Proposition 8, says he hopes a Supreme Court ruling on standing would prompt opponents of gay marriage to concede defeat.

“I’m hopeful that the Proposition 8 proponents will at some point come to their senses and say, ‘Enough is enough,’” Boutrous said. “It’s time for everyone to move onto something else and allow people to marry the person they love in California without more litigation.”



Title: Poll: Majority in Michigan now support gay marriage
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 14, 2013, 11:21:35 pm
Even though Michigan is technically a "blue" state, at the same time supposedly, it's also a state with a lot of social conservatives. It's also the home of that "Our Daily Bread" ministries(which is very popular in Churchianity circles). Personally, when I got saved in 2006, I started reading their devotionals in 2006 - it is stone-cold Churchianity stuff. They use the NEW King James Version as their primary bible, which is even worse than using the NIV.

Anyhow - thought about this when I saw this article - we will see if/when/how soon these "red" Churchianity states will break.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130514/POLITICS02/305140459/1022/rss10
5/14/13
Poll: Majority in Michigan now support gay marriage

Detroit — A majority of Michiganians supports gay marriage and broadening rights for homosexuals, a dramatic reversal from just a few years ago, according to a statewide poll released Tuesday to The Detroit News and WDIV-TV Channel 4.

Support for same-sex marriage has increased to 56.8 percent, up 12.5 percentage points from last year — movement fueled largely by shifting opinions from Republicans and independents, the poll of 600 registered voters by the Glengariff Group Inc. showed.

The support is in contrast to 2004, when Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

That year, Glengariff found 24 percent of state voters supported gay and lesbian marriages. Now, 54 percent would repeal the ban and replace it with an amendment to allow same-sex marriages, the poll found.

"I don't think I've ever seen a policy question move as quickly as this one," said Richard Czuba, president of Glengariff, a Chicago-based firm that has polled about Michigan's attitudes on gay marriage and civil unions regularly since 2004.

The poll comes as partisans await a U.S. Supreme Court decision on two cases related to gay marriage and debate is roiling within the Republican Party over its opposition to the unions. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton on Tuesday signed legislation making his state the 12th to recognize same-sex marriages and the third alone this month.

The poll, which was conducted from May 8 to Friday, found at least 90 percent of Michigan voters favor some legal protections for homosexuals, while at least 65 percent favor changes to laws allowing for civil unions, inheritance rights, adoption, domestic benefits and hate crime protections. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Czuba said the change is propelled by acceptance — more residents know gays and lesbians — and belies the perception that rank-and-file Republicans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage.

Support for it increased among voters who identify themselves as Republicans to 36.5 percent this year from 20 percent last year. It rose to 50.6 percent from 36 percent among independents and to 75 percent from 71 percent among Democrats over the same period, the poll found.

A majority of younger voters favor same-sex marriage. Regionally, support is strongest in southeast Michigan, the poll found. It was weakest in western Michigan, 42 percent, and mid-Michigan, 38 percent.

Weekly churchgoers were the biggest opponents — with 58 percent against the marriages, the poll found.

"Back in 2004, this was very much a wedge issue for Republicans," Czuba said. "The shoe is on the other foot. This is still a values issue, but it's one of equality rather than 'stop this.' "

Not so, said Michigan Republican National Committeeman David Agema.

"The vast majority of people understand the family unit is the basic basis of our society," Agema said.

"If (gay marriage) were to pass nationwide, I fear what kids would be taught in school. If it's a government-sanctioned lifestyle, hate crimes would begin for those speaking out against it, and we would lose our freedom of speech. Then they would come to churches and take tax-exempt status away from churches that didn't support the lifestyle. That's what happened in other countries."

Agema has become a lightning rod after sharing an article on Facebook recently that called homosexuality a "filthy lifestyle." Several Republicans called for his resignation and argued he hurt the party as it strives to become more inclusive and attract younger voters.

Agema isn't backing down. Republicans shouldn't either, said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, a Republican primary hopeful for U.S. Senate last year. Standing firm against gay marriage could attract blacks, Hispanics and union members to the party, Glenn said.

Despite the poll's findings, party faithful decide primary elections and remain "intensely opposed" to gay marriage, said Leon Drolet, a former Republican state representative who is gay.

"Someone has to lose an election for being too anti-gay before politicians start getting nervous," said Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance.

The stance may win elections in safe districts now, but it's a loser in the long run, he said.

"It's sucking energy out of the Republican Party and sucking the youth out of the Republican Party," he said
.

Gay rights legislation still faces challenges in the Republican-controlled state Legislature. Efforts to include gays in the state's civil rights law, the Elliott Larsen Act, have failed for years.

Similar bills should be introduced soon, while a campaign to drum up support to repeal the constitutional ban on gay marriage is planned in anticipation of a 2016 ballot proposal, said Emily Dievendorf, managing director for Equality Michigan, a Detroit-based bipartisan gay and lesbian group seeking to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The momentum that is building nationally is really shining a bright light on how far behind Michigan is," she said. "It's embarrassing to all of us."



Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 21, 2013, 03:16:10 pm
Gallup Poll: Majority Now Say Gay Sex, Unwed Births, Are Morally OK
http://www.christianpost.com/news/gallup-poll-majority-now-say-gay-sex-unwed-births-are-morally-ok-96306/
5/21/13

A Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans now believe that sexual relations between two men or two women, and unmarried women having a baby, are morally acceptable.

In the new survey, 59 percent of American adults answered that gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable, a 19 percentage point increase since 2001 when only 40 percent said it was morally acceptable.

Sixty percent of respondents said that having a baby outside of marriage was morally acceptable, a 15 percentage point increase since 2002 when only 45 percent said it was morally acceptable.

Of the 20 issues which Gallup asked about their moral acceptability, same-sex sexual relations and unwed pregnancies saw the greatest increases. They were also the only issues which changed from a minority to a majority of the country finding them morally acceptable over the past decade.

The other large increases in moral acceptability were: sex between an unmarried man and woman went from 53 to 63 percent, divorce went from 59 to 63 percent, and medical research using stem cells from human embryos went from 52 to 60 percent.

The only large decline in moral acceptability was for medical testing on animals, which went from 65 to 56 percent.

The moral acceptability of abortion remained the same as it was in 2001, at 42 percent. There was little change in the moral acceptability of pornography (31 percent), gambling (64 percent), buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur (59 percent), and the death penalty (62 percent).

At six percent, married men and women having an affair had the lowest number of those saying it was morally acceptable.

The May 2-7 poll of 1,535 adults has a plus or minus three percentage point margin of error.



Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on May 22, 2013, 03:50:06 am
Quote
The support is in contrast to 2004, when Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

That year, Glengariff found 24 percent of state voters supported gay and lesbian marriages. Now, 54 percent would repeal the ban and replace it with an amendment to allow same-sex marriages, the poll found.

No way no how. I ain't buying it. There is no way the public has changed like that. To go from passing not just some bill, but a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage, to the majority opposing the ban? In basically eight years? Personally, I don't believe it. I think this is another case of certain people using polls to plant seeds in the public's minds, to sway them over time to believing a lie.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 22, 2013, 09:31:40 am
No way no how. I ain't buying it. There is no way the public has changed like that. To go from passing not just some bill, but a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage, to the majority opposing the ban? In basically eight years? Personally, I don't believe it. I think this is another case of certain people using polls to plant seeds in the public's minds, to sway them over time to believing a lie.

I agree that even polls like this are rigged - but at the same time, we can't deny the fact all of the indoctrination they've been throwing, in particular at the youth, in public schools, entertainment, etc concerning getting them to accept the sodomy agenda. And for that matter too, even older people I've crossed paths with have admitted we should have at least some tolerance over this. For example, I commented to someone in 2010 how Rick Warren endorses openly gay pastors, and he responded, "What if my son was gay?!".(10-20 years ago, his response would have been much different) And on another occasion when I expressed concern over how the modern-day church has been embracing rock music within their walls recently, his response was, "But we can't discriminate against the youth like this".(Again, he condemned rock music, no ifs ands or buts 10-20 years ago)

Over the span of a mere 8 years of going from having a constitutional ban on gay marriage to opposing it? Hate to say it, but it doesn't surprise me one bit. If anything, while sodomy wasn't accepted in the 80's, it was nonetheless being tolerated. And for that matter too, the NIV and these other perversions have watered down homosexuality being a sin quite a bit. So ultimately, while people opposed it for so long, as we can see here, the dam eventually has broken.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 08, 2013, 10:31:33 pm
Yes, this is right in my backyard in DFW - big surprise(or maybe, maybe not), as it's from the great state of Texas...

Anyhow, this is how the whole Communist Manifesto Hegelian Dialectic works - just a very, very persistent war of words...and the big reason why everyone ends up giving into the enemy is b/c they do NOT have the Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and the word of God in their hearts. Otherwise, you WILL fall into compromise every time!

Luke 8:5  A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
Luk 8:6  And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
Luk 8:7  And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
Luk 8:8  And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Luk 8:9  And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
Luk 8:10  And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Luk 8:11  Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Luk 8:12  Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
Luk 8:13  They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
Luk 8:14  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
Luk 8:15  But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.


http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/06/08/thousands-rally-to-support-gay-marriage-protest-mayor/
6/8/13
Hundreds Rally To Support Gay Marriage; Protest Mayor

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - Hundreds rallied in support for gay marriage Saturday.

The gay pride march was originally planned to bring attention to two marriage equality cases awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. Recent events however, at Dallas City Hall have given the rally a new purpose.

Supporters said they’re protesting Mayor Mike Rawlings due to his decision not to put a resolution supporting gay marriage on the city council agenda.

This isn’t the first time Rawlings has drawn the ire of protestors. Last yea he refused to sign a pledge in support of a Constitutional law allowing same-sex marriage.

“I’m a bit pledge-phobic,” Rawlings told reporters at the Dallas Resource Center afterward. “I think America has got too many pledges out there and I think it’s simplistic and not substantive.”

While signing the pledge may be a “simplistic” action for Rawlings, members of the LGBT community said it could  have resonated deeply throughout the city.

The Boys Scouts of America just lifted its ban on gay scouts, but not without loud and widespread opposition. A dozen states plus the District of Columbia now permit same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court will also rule on same-sex marriage this year.

Pride Month is held to commemorate the June 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City, which was the turning point for the gay rights movement.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 12, 2013, 12:23:59 pm
I know this is prophecized in the last days, but nonetheless had no idea depravity would get THIS low. From what I read, this transgender wanted to be a girl since he was 4. You can't deny the entertainment media has played a big part - saw videos how kids as young as babies are shown alot of programming and music.

Transgender student suit goes to Maine high court
http://news.yahoo.com/transgender-student-suit-goes-maine-high-court-153230913.html;_ylt=AwrNUbLyrbhRd1kAp.HQtDMD
6/12/13

BANGOR, Maine (AP) — Lawyers for a transgender girl and an elementary school that required the fifth-grader to use a staff bathroom instead of the girls restroom clashed before Maine's highest court Wednesday over whether her rights were violated, a case that lays bare the difficult decisions facing school administrators.

The family and the Maine Human Rights Commission sued, but a judge in the state's lower Superior Court ruled that the Orono school district acted within its discretion by requiring her to use a staff bathroom after there was a complaint about the student using the girls bathroom.

After Wednesday's hearing, the student, Nicole Maines, who's now 15 and attending a high school in southern Maine, said she wouldn't wish her experience on anyone else and hope the justices hear her out.

"I hope they understood how important it is for students to be able to go to school and get an education and have fun and make friends, and not have to worry about being bullied by students or administration, and be accepted for who they are," the sophomore said.

At issue is whether the school violated the Maine Human Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation. But state law also requires separate bathrooms for boys and girls in schools.

Melissa Hewey, lawyer for the school and school district, said afterward it should be up to the Legislature to clarify the issue.

"To the extent that the people in Maine decide that this law in Maine should be changed, then that should be done. But right now the law is what it is, and our school district didn't violate it," she said.

The case goes beyond just the bathroom issue to the broader question of what's best for transgender students, said Jennifer Levi, director of Transgender Rights Project for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

"At the core of this case is whether the promise of equal educational opportunities for transgender students is realized," she said.

It's a topic that school administrators are grappling with nationwide.

Policies about transgender adults are still evolving, and the thinking about how to handle children who identify with the gender opposite of the sex they're born with is even more complex.

Last year, the American Psychiatric Association removed "gender identity disorder" from its list of mental health ailments. And the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics filed a brief urging that transgender children be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice.

In the Maine case, Nicole Maines is a biological male who from an early age identified as a girl.

School officials initially allowed her to use the girls bathroom in her school, but the policy was altered after the grandfather of a fifth-grade boy complained to school officials. Maines' attorneys said she felt like she was singled out by having to use the staff bathroom.

The family and their child are not identified in the lawsuit alleging discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act. But they've since been identified Wayne and Kelly Maines and their identical twins, Nicole and Jonas.

Wayne Maines struggled to maintain his composure as he gave a brief statement outside the Penobscot Judicial Center, where the Maine Supreme Judicial Court heard the arguments.

"It has been extremely difficult, but I'm pleased to be here and to have our case heard, and I'm very hopeful for a good outcome," he said, with Nicole, Jonas and his wife at his side.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 12, 2013, 12:29:38 pm
^^ Speaking of the strong delusion Paul prophecizes in 2 The 2, look at the picture in the link, this transgender DOES look like a girl! I'll admit he really fooled me too!

It's as if we're at a point nowdays that a big growing number of evil things in this world just looks too good to be true!


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 14, 2013, 10:16:11 pm
Looks like the rulings will be handed down on Monday, June 17th.

http://news.yahoo.com/chat-about-the-supreme-court-ruling-with-scotusblog-experts-201912869.html
6/14/13
Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions

Live coverage from SCOTUSblog


The Supreme Court is expected to hand down several rulings Monday, two of which have the potential to drastically expand the rights of gays and lesbians in the country.

As the term draws to a close at the end of June, the nine justices still have not released decisions in two highly anticipated gay marriage cases—Perry v. Hollingsworth and Windsor v. United States—as well as two key cases involving race, Shelby County v. Holder and Fisher v. University of Texas.

At 9:15 a.m., the experts at SCOTUSblog—SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States—will begin analyzing what the Court might do in the liveblog below, and when a decision is handed down, this liveblog will likely be the first place to break the news.

In the Perry case, the court is expected decide whether California voters discriminated against gay people when they voted to ban same-sex marriage. In Windsor, the court is weighing whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act—which limits all federal marriage benefits to opposite sex couples--violates the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

In Shelby, the justices could significantly scale back the federal government's right to supervise states with a history of voting discrimination against minorities, and in Fisher, the court will decide whether universities can use race as a factor in undergraduate admissions.

The Court will begin issuing opinions at 10 a.m. ET.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 20, 2013, 01:16:51 pm
It's been hinted that the justices in the Prop 8 case will likely rule that Prop 8 supporters do not have legal standing.

Never understood what this really meant(other than letting CA to legalize gay marriage), but the big picture is that Vaughn Walker's lower court ruling in 2010 will stand, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Judge Walker's ruling will be struck down(meaning gay marriage will not be legalized nationwide). On the contrary, if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is upheld(instead of looking into the "do not have legal standing" status), then gay marriage would be legalized nationwide. Again, I don't understand why, but apparently it's b/c the Circuit Court of Appeals courts around the country represent RESPECTIVE REGIONS in the country, wheras Vaugh Walker just represents THE STATE of CA.

No, I'm not here to discuss gay marriage now, but these particular terms that have been used in this particular court proceedings - if they use the "do not have legal standing" ruling, then it's going to open up a whole new can of worms b/c it will only continue the Hegelian Dialectic with this issue(as obviously gay marriage isn't legalized nationwide), which the "religious right"/pro-marriage/pro-family groups have now started to stand down against(which is no surprise, as they're controlled opposition groups to begin with).


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on June 20, 2013, 03:23:15 pm
Quote
these particular terms that have been used in this particular court proceedings - if they use the "do not have legal standing" ruling, then it's going to open up a whole new can of worms b/c it will only continue the Hegelian Dialectic with this issue

There's big money in a cause that is being pursued. Once the cause is settled, no more support money to promote said cause. Interesting how that works!

People just can't hide unbelief and the love of money.

Anyway...

"Standing", as I understand it, would have no affect on a lower court ruling, as when it is ruled that they have no standing, they are talking about the side who is approaching the court, the plaintiff.

It's a ruling that says, "You don't have a claim, sorry. Go away." They won't rule on any aspect of the claims in the suit, they technically don't get that far. The court first must determine if the plaintiff has right to claim  something, typically if they have suffered, or were in the position to suffer, "damage" or not. Once that is done, THEN the case will be heard, and rulings made based on the case presented.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 20, 2013, 04:48:24 pm
"Standing", as I understand it, would have no affect on a lower court ruling, as when it is ruled that they have no standing, they are talking about the side who is approaching the court, the plaintiff.

It's a ruling that says, "You don't have a claim, sorry. Go away." They won't rule on any aspect of the claims in the suit, they technically don't get that far. The court first must determine if the plaintiff has right to claim  something, typically if they have suffered, or were in the position to suffer, "damage" or not. Once that is done, THEN the case will be heard, and rulings made based on the case presented.

That's what it is - I think I have a much better understanding with this now. Thank you! :)


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 21, 2013, 08:43:25 am
OK, not that I want to make a big deal out of this particular story - but point being that you're hearing a number of these same stories pop up recently. The same people who went out campaigning for Prop 8/traditional marriage 5 years ago are now finding excuses to openly be against it.

It's as if all of this is by design from the get-go. Lesson to be learned is that when you see these "activist" groups going out campaigning for something(whether Christian or not), first and foremost thing to do is to TRY THE SPIRITS. When Prop 8 was being campaigned for before the 2008 election, most of Churchianity was hopping on the bandwagon without trying the spirits, acting like they would be heroes. Even OBAMA supported Prop 8, believe it or not - so what does that tell you?

Mormon Mom Who Fought for Prop 8, Now Fights for Gay Son
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mormon-mom-fought-prop-fights-gay-son/story?id=19451081#.UcRQFWwo5jo


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 21, 2013, 08:44:56 am
FYI, Vaughn Walker, who ruled to strike down Prop 8 at the lower court level in 2010, is a GEORGE HW BUSH appointee.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Vaughn_Walker
Quote
Vaughn R. Walker (b. 1944) was a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He became a member of the court in 1989 after being nominated by George H.W. Bush. He served as Chief Judge of the court from 2004 to 2010. Walker stepped down from the court on February 28, 2011. [1]


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 24, 2013, 05:19:20 pm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/westboro-baptist-church-witnesses-1st-gay-wedding-ceremony-article-1.1380412
Westboro Baptist Church bears witness to gay wedding ceremony officiated by lesbian Baptist minister directly across the street in Topeka, Kansas

Kimberly Kidwell and Katie Short exchanged vows in a ceremony outside the rainbow-painted Equality House about 50 feet from the front doors of the church known for its vile rants against all things homosexual.


6/23/13

A lesbian couple gave the bigots at the Gay-hating Westboro Baptist Church a taste of their own medicine by tying the knot in an outdoor ceremony across the street from the church.

The Westboro members, who are infamous for staging anti-Gay protests at the funerals of fallen soldiers, were forced to watch as Kimberly Kidwell and Katie Short said “I do” just 50 feet from their front doors in Topeka, Kan.

Same-sex marriage is not legal in Kansas, but the couple proceeded with the ceremony with the help of an ordained Baptist minister, who also happens to be a lesbian, to raise awareness of the issue.

Approximately 100 guests filled the front lawn of the rainbow-painted Equality House to cheer on the couple who traveled from just north of Little Rock, Ark.

Aaron Jackson, one of the founders of the Equality House's Planting Peace charity, described the entire event as "absolutely perfect" thanks entirely through the community's generous donations.

"The community came out in droves and just showed their support, holding up signs expressing their support for the event. It was a really incredible thing to see," he said.

As for the WBC members, the often obscenely vocal arch nemeses of all things homosexual, they made their presence known with signs bearing vile messages and upside-down American flags, Jackson said. But otherwise they kept their distance and didn't get involved.

"They're not allowed to protest a residential property," Jackson said.

Responding at length to the scene on Twitter instead, WBC called the wedding a "great preaching opportunity," in so many extra words.

"We love all neighbors & tell them truth as they gather…" they wrote while posting a photo showcasing the work they had done in decorating their fenced-in yard with crude signs specifically for the event.

Rev Robin Lunn, the Executive Director of the Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists who performed Saturday’s ceremony, said she had actually hoped Westboro members would come out and talk to them but to her surprise found, "they're not interested in us."

"No one came out of their compound," she told the Daily News. "They just put up their ugly signs and that was the extent of it."


Lunn said she had been warned by Jackson of the church's penchant for suing anyone who steps on their property so decided they’d have to resort to other methods to communicate with them instead.

As part of Lunn’s 15-state Living Jubilee Revival Tour with her association of churches she said they will be collecting prayers for the WBC over the next 30 days that they’ll later mail to the church in a packet.

"We don't hate them. We disagree with their message and their interpretation of the Bible but we don't hate them and we wanted to bring our version of what it means to be a Baptist," she said. "Love is bigger than hate."

But even if the WBC members continue to ignore their efforts, the WBC members are ultimately still the very least bit of the concerns shared by same-sex couples and activists across the country.

Those gay-rights activists have bigger fish to fry, specifically the Supreme Court's rulings on marriage equality.

"We wanted to play a part in bringing two people together that are very much in love, and it's an unfortunate fact that the government treats them as second-class citizens," Jackson said of the Equality House's decision to host the wedding and get involved in the marriage equality fight.

Jackson said that after first meeting Kimberly and Katie after the Equality House posted on their Facebook page of their intent to house a same-sex wedding, he just knew they were the "perfect fit" and example of "love."

As he explained, they give "a good reputation of the gay community, they've been together for five and a half years, and they've been waiting for their state or the higher courts to vote to overturn the anti-gay discrimination law."

"They seemed like a perfect fit and they were a perfect fit," he said.

In lieu of gifts, the couple asked donations be made to a Planting Peace fundraiser working toward marriage equality.



Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on June 25, 2013, 03:07:44 am
Quote
Rev Robin Lunn, the Executive Director of the Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists who performed Saturday’s ceremony

A gay female Baptist pastor? So people are just taking on the name of denominations as they please? Since when did Baptists allow female pastors, gay ones at that?

Are gays now labeling themselves by names that don't support gays to make it look like they do?

I'm confused.  :-\


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 25, 2013, 01:07:17 pm
A gay female Baptist pastor? So people are just taking on the name of denominations as they please? Since when did Baptists allow female pastors, gay ones at that?

Are gays now labeling themselves by names that don't support gays to make it look like they do?

I'm confused.  :-\

Been to SBC churches for many years - there's just way too much leaven in it. There are Christ-denying/athiest members like Dallas Willard and Richard Foster(believe it or not), lesbian pastors(yes, there's an SBC church in VA I think headed by a lesbian pastor), Emergent Church leaders like Rick Warren(SBC has given him a platform to boot), those that promote Catholicism(like Chuck Colson did), Freemasons(a good % of them either teach Sunday School, are deacons, or are pastors), the list goes on.

And through it all, somehow they managed to convince their flock that the leadership is headed by true bible believing fundamental Christians. I tell you though - some of the leaders(at the local level, that is) I've crossed paths with have come off as cold and arrogant.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 25, 2013, 01:10:36 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-sets-timing-same-sex-marriage-rulings-154611383.html
Supreme Court sets timing for same-sex marriage rulings
6/25/13

With three cases left unannounced, Chief Justice John Roberts announced that June 26 will be the last day the Court is in session. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy are expected to be involved in the two cases about same-sex marriage.

Since those two justices are among the last to read opinions, based on the court’s pecking order, the decisions should start being read between 10:05 a.m. EDT and 10:10 a.m. EDT on Wednesday.

Last year, the Court held its decision about the Affordable Care Act until its final day, causing a media frenzy that left some major media outlets dazed and confused about the court’s ruling.

On Wednesday, expect an equal amount of media attention on a widely publicized pair of cases that have plenty of twists and turns.

In Windsor v. U.S., the Court will decide if the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for people of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state.

In the case, the Second Circuit ruled that DOMA perpetuates “discrimination” against gays and that the law is unconstitutional when subject to intermediate scrutiny.

After the decision in the Second Circuit, the Department of Justice decided to stop defending DOMA because it believed it was unconstitutional.

That opened the question for the justices whether the court even had jurisdiction because the government wasn’t defending the law.

In Perry, the justices will decide if the state of California can define marriage as the union of only a man and a woman without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This case challenges the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8.  The proposition passed in 2008 to amend the state constitution to limit marriage to same-sex couples. The case challenges the proposition on equal protection and due process grounds.

Significantly, Governor Jerry Brown refused to defend the constitutionality of the law, which opened up a standing question for the group seeking to defend it.

The partnership of long-time Supreme Court litigators David Boies and Theodore Olson, who litigated on opposite sides of Bush v Gore, has attracted a lot of attention in the case.

The Court is expected to issue rulings that reference both cases.


Title: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2013, 09:16:02 am
Supreme Court strikes down DOMA

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-doma-140330141.html
6/26/16
In its first ever case on the issue of gay marriage, the Supreme Court has struck down a federal law barring the recognition of same-sex marriage in a split decision, ruling that the law violates the rights of gays and lesbians.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote with a legal history of supporting gay rights, joined his liberal colleagues in the decision, which will dramatically expand the rights of married gay couples in the country to access more than 1,000 federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage previously denied them.

The case is Windsor v. United States, a challenge to the federal 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages even in the 12 states and District of Columbia that allow them. DOMA extends to more than 1,000 federal laws and statutes, including immigration, taxes, and Social Security benefits.

Eighty-three-year-old New Yorker Edith Windsor brought the suit after she was made to pay more than $363,000 in estate taxes when her same-sex spouse died. If the federal government had recognized her marriage, Windsor would not have owed the sum. She argued that the government has no rational reason to exclude her marriage of more than four decades from the benefits and obligations other married couples receive.

DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

Kennedy authored two of the most important Supreme Court decisions involving, and ultimately affirming, gay rights: Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Romer v. Evans (1996). In Romer, Kennedy struck down Colorado's constitutional amendment banning localities from passing anti-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians. In Romer, Kennedy invalidated state anti-sodomy laws, ruling that gay people have a right to engage in sexual behavior in their own homes.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) has defended DOMA since the Obama administration announced they believed the law was unconstitutional in 2011. (Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the president for this move during oral arguments in the case, saying the president lacked “the courage of his convictions” in continuing to enforce the law but no longer defending it in court.)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2013, 09:20:47 am
From Live SCOTUSblog:

DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

"DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled ot recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From what I saw on CNN - DOMA is no longer the law of the land.


Title: US top court paves way for gay marriage in CA
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2013, 09:40:41 am
TWO of the courts conservatives(not just Roberts) voted for it. Sotemeyer voted against it. The other conservative who voted for it is Scalia.

http://live.reuters.com/Event/SCOTUS_ruling_on_gay_marriage
US top court paves way for gay marriage in CA

WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday paved the way for gay marriage in California but sidestepped a broad ruling that would affect the whole country by saying it could not decide a closely watched case on the constitutionality of a California law that restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples.

By finding on a 5-4 vote that supporters of the ban on gay marriage did not have standing to defend the law, the court effectively gave the green light for at least some gay weddings to proceed in California because a federal judge’s original ruling that struck down the law, known as Proposition 8, will remain intact.


Title: Re: US top court paves way for gay marriage in CA
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2013, 09:45:04 am
FYI, Scalia gave away his hand last week...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/06/21/4121621/nc-lawyers-listen-as-justice-scalia.html
6/21/13
N.C. lawyers listen as Justice Scalia bemoans ‘moral arbiter’ on eve of gay marriage ruling

ASHEVILLE With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues.

Why?

We aren’t qualified, Scalia said
.

In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.

Scalia said that approach presents two problems: Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer.”

As such, he said, it’s a community’s job to decide what it finds morally acceptable, not the courts’.

The justice’s 35-minute speech at the bar association’s annual meeting was met with two rounds of applause, laughter and, afterward, some pointed questions.

During his speech, Scalia acknowledged that his opinion is not universally shared. Many legal scholars and judges – including some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court – believe in a “living Constitution” that reflects “evolving standards of decency.” This also has given rise to what Scalia decried as a sprawling application of the provisions of human rights and equal protection under the law.

In response to a question, he said he does not ascribe to a Constitution locked away from change. The law must evolve to deal with new phenomena, he said, but it should do so while remaining firmly moored in its founding principles. And most moral issues, he added, don’t qualify as new.

One of those moral debates – gay marriage – is now before the high court. The justices are expected to rule next week on two same-sex cases. One involves the federal Defense of Marriage Act; the other, California’s Proposition 8. Both oppose gay marriage.

A majority of states, including both Carolinas, have same-sex marriage bans in place. But polls show that most Americans now support a gay couple’s right to marry.

Scalia, known for his provocative comments and writings since being appointed in 1986, is barred from publicly discussing pending cases. But during his half-hour speech at the Grove Park Inn on Friday, the 77-year-old frequently listed homosexuality among the issues that should be decided by the public and not unelected judges.

His comments during the March oral arguments for the same-sex marriage cases followed a similar bent. “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?” he asked.

His earlier statements about the legal rights of gay couples are even more outspoken. During an October speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Scalia described the death penalty, abortion and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy” constitutional issues. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years it was criminal in every state.”

And in an dissenting opinion from a 2003 case that overturned Texas’ anti-sodomy law, he said Americans have the clear right to enforce traditional moral restrictions against homosexual behavior “to protect themselves from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

Raleigh attorney John Sarratt said he expects the thoughts Scalia expressed Friday to be reflected in the judge’s upcoming opinion on gay marriage – that the courts should leave the existing laws alone.

During a question-and-answer period that followed the judge’s speech, Sarratt asked Scalia if he would have taken a similarly hands-off approach to “Brown v. Board of Education,” the legal cornerstone of school desegregation across the country.

Scalia said he would have voted with the majority on the case to create more educational opportunities for blacks. He added, however, that “a good result” doesn’t make for good law. Had the courts not interceded, he said, state leaders would have eventually removed the racial barriers.

The question is when, Sarratt said later. The Raleigh attorney said he enjoyed Scalia’s speech but didn’t agree with its central message.

“I tend to be outcome-based,” he said. “And if the outcome is equality for all people, then I’m for the courts moving in that direction, before the people are ready.”

John Lassiter, a former Charlotte City Council member who was sitting in the front row, said Scalia’s remarks were consistent with his longstanding “originalist” view of the Constitution and a restrained judiciary.


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2013, 10:06:51 am
FYI - that's TWO Ronald Reagan appointments that ended up being the swing vote in both of these cases(Kennedy and Scalia).


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2013, 10:26:14 am
hopefully Jesus will come back in about 1 min


Title: Re: Supreme Court to hear Prop 8/DOMA gay marriage cases March 26-27
Post by: Kilika on June 26, 2013, 12:30:43 pm
Quote
...ruling that the law violates the rights of gays and lesbians.

Who didn't know they would rule that way? It's the world brethren, and the world loves it's own. Nothing has changed, but words on paper.

The world is still evil, and will burn for it.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2013, 05:46:30 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/kennedy-constitutionality-big-gay-mississippi-state-marriage-fight-190028959.html
6/26/13
Kennedy, Constitutionality, and Big Gay Mississippi: A New State Marriage Fight

The Supreme Court didn't make gay marriage legal in all 50 states on Tuesday, but Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in United States v. Windsor gave us a clear sign of how it will happen. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, tells The Atlantic Wire, "While today's ruling applied only to DOMA, most of the reasoning and analysis would apply equally to state marriage bans, and it is likely we will see more challenges to those state bans in the coming years and that the Supreme Court will be asked to rule on the constitutionality of all state marriage bans in the not too distant future." Kennedy said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, not only violated federal deference to states' tradition of defining marriage, it also was passed to express disapproval of gay people. In his angry dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia warned wanted that if it's not OK for the federal government to do treat gay people like that, the court will eventually find it's not OK for the states to do that, either. Gay marriage supporters hope Scalia's right. As Minter said, "The writing is on the wall!"

"It's a very big day obviously," Loyola University law professor Douglas NeJaime said. "It's two big steps forward for the same-sex marriage cause. But the interesting question is what happens down the road, because the constitutionality of state bans has not been resolved." Kennedy's opinion had a "really important marriage on the dignity and equality of same-sex couples." Hours after the decision, the ACLU, which brought the Windsor case to the Supreme Court, announced a $10 million campaign to do exactly what Scalia feared. "The next step is the battle to overturn 30 state DOMAs, state by state," the ACLU's Anthony D. Romero told The New York Times' John Schwartz. "Justice Scalia is finally right — on this one." The ACLU is hiring Steve Schmidt, who was John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign manager, to run the effort.

DOMA is unusual, Kennedy said, because usually the federal government accepts state definitions of marriage. Instead, it takes away those benefits. "This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose  and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law." Scalia scoffed that the court was "leaving the second, state-law shoe to be dropped later, maybe next Term." NeJaime says next term might be a little too soon, but there are a few cases that present the question of whether state constitutional bans are constitutional. Sevcik v. Sandoval challenges Nevada's gay marriage ban, and Jackson v. Abercrombie challenges Hawaii's. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put these cases on hold until the Supreme Court decided on DOMA and Prop 8.

There are parts of Kennedy's opinion that state-level opponents of gay marriage can look to. At SCOTUSblog, Tejinder Singh explains that while Section 3 of DOMA — the marriage is only for boy + girl part — was struck down, Windsor didn't address Section 2 of DOMA, which says other states do not have to recognize a gay marriage granted in another state. If or when a Section 2 case comes, Singh says, "both sides could find support in today's opinion. Challengers to Section 2 would argue that it is rooted in the same 'bare animus' that the Court held characterizes Section 3. Defenders of Section 2 would argue that Section 2 is really about the states' rights to define marriage, which today's opinion supports."

As The Atlantic Wire explained after the cases' oral arguments in March, the Supreme Court's decision is going to create a lot of immediate problems. Gay couples legally married in New York will now get all their federal benefits there. But what if they move to Mississippi? The National Center for Lesbian Rights's Minter explained that some states recognize common law marriages while others don't, and the federal government only recognizes them when the state does. But NeJaime said it could be more complicated. New York doesn't have common law marriages, but if a common law married couple from South Carolina moves to New York, New York will recognize their marriage. That's because New York doesn't think it has a strong public policy interest in not recognizing common law marriages. But that's clearly not the case for gay marriage in states like Mississippi. It's possible a married gay couple in New York will move to Mississippi and lose recognition of their marriage.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 27, 2013, 01:33:24 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-gets-big-boost-two-supreme-court-130550277.html
6/27/13
Supreme Court declines to take up two more gay rights cases

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court, a day after deciding two major cases on gay marriage, declined on Thursday to take up two more cases on the issue.

The cases concerned Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage, and an Arizona law that denies state benefits to "domestic partners."

The court declined to take the cases without comment. Its action means an appeals court ruling striking down the Arizona law stays in effect, while litigation over the Nevada law will continue.

On Wednesday the justices struck down a key part of a federal law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that denied federal benefits to same-sex married couples.

The justices avoided deciding the constitutionality of a California law enacted in 2008, called Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage. The justices found that supporters of the law did not have standing to appeal a federal district court ruling that struck it down.

The Arizona case concerns a law that limits health benefits to employees' spouses and dependants, thereby excluding domestic partners, including those in same-sex relationships. Gay marriage is not recognized in Arizona.

Prior to the law being enacted via a ballot initiative in November 2008, the state had for several months allowed same-sex domestic partners to receive health benefits.

Gay and lesbian state employees sued before the new law was due to go into effect in January 2011, saying it violated their equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going in effect. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in September 2011, prompting the state's appeal to the Supreme Court.

In the other case, supporters of Nevada's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage asked the Supreme Court to rule definitively that states could limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The case arose when eight same-sex couples either tried to get married in Nevada or asked the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages. A federal court dismissed their claim. The case is pending before an appeals court, but the supporters of the ban asked the Supreme Court to take an early look at the issue
.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA the AFTERMATH...
Post by: Mark on June 27, 2013, 09:32:05 pm

Two Pennsylvania House Democrats vow to introduce a bill that would allow same-sex marriage in state - @pennlive


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/06/bill_to_allow_gay_marriage_in.html#/0


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on June 28, 2013, 03:48:26 am
Quote
Its action means an appeals court ruling striking down the Arizona law stays in effect

Well, of course it does!  ::)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 28, 2013, 06:13:49 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/just-gay-marriage-once-again-legal-california-224056311.html
Just Like That, Gay Marriage Is Once Again Legal in California
6/28/13

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted its order putting on hold a state court ruling determining that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Or, in other words: thanks to the Supreme Court throwing out a challenge to the decision earlier this week, Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 determination that the law barring gay marriages in the state violated California's constitution is now in force.

"The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately," the Court wrote. With that, and a bit ahead of schedule, gay marriage is once again legal in California.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

A spokesman for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had originally said it would takes the court at least 25 days to act after a Supreme Court ruling. Immediately afterward, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered his public health agency to advise the state's counties to "begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the 9th Circuit confirms the stay is lifted."

With the order today, which can be read in all of its brevity below, that process is now complete.

The Times notes that "clerks began receiving calls Wednesday from gay couples wanting to schedule appointments." They still have a few hours to get to the clerk's office before the weekend.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 28, 2013, 09:02:27 pm
Photo: Los Angeles mayor officiates marriage of Prop. 8 plaintiffs Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo - @msnbc

https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/350786164388659200/photo/1


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on July 10, 2013, 12:44:34 pm
Gay marriage: Lawsuit, first since DOMA ruling, targets Pennsylvania ban

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit Tuesday on behalf of 10 same-sex couples, two children, and a lesbian widow asking a federal judge to strike down Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The lawsuit comes less than two weeks after the US Supreme Court invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and opened the way for California to resume same-sex marriages.

The suit is the first of several lawsuits expected at the state level in the wake of the DOMA decision and cited language from the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The case was filed in federal court in Harrisburg, Pa., and was assigned to US District Judge John Jones. Judge Jones is a 2002 appointee of then-President George W. Bush.

If the suit is successful, Pennsylvania would become the 14th state to recognize same-sex marriage through either a court ruling or legislative action. Similar legal challenges are expected soon in North Carolina and Virginia.

The Pennsylvania suit seeks to take the legal battle over same-sex marriage one step further than the Supreme Court was willing to go last month in its landmark ruling in the DOMA case.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.
 
The plaintiffs argue that Pennsylvania’s marriage law denies them the ability to exercise a “fundamental right” to marry regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right in unions between a man and a woman, but the high court has not yet addressed whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.

“The Supreme Court has long recognized that marriage is a fundamental right and that choices about marriage, like choices about other aspects of family, are a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,” the Pennsylvania suit says in part.

“Pennsylvania law denies the plaintiff couples and other same-sex couples this fundamental right by denying them access to the state-recognized institution of marriage and refusing to recognize the marriages they entered into in other states.”

The lawsuit continues: “The Commonwealth can demonstrate no important interest to justify denying the plaintiff couples this fundamental right. Indeed, it cannot demonstrate that the denial is tailored to any legitimate interest at all.”

The suit also challenges the Pennsylvania marriage statute on grounds that it discriminates against same-sex couples by treating them differently than opposite-sex couples who are allowed to marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage.

Evoking the language of Justice Kennedy’s opinion, the lawsuit says the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from marriage in Pennsylvania serves no compelling purpose other than to injure same-sex couples and their families.

The exclusion stigmatizes children in families headed by same-sex couples, the lawsuit says.

According to the 2010 census, there are more than 6,000 same-sex couples raising children in Pennsylvania.

The lead plaintiffs in the case are Deb and Susan Whitewood, who have lived together in a committed relationship for 22 years. They live in Bridgeville in Allegheny County with their three children. They have two daughters, ages 16 and 15, and a two-year-old son.

Susan Whitewood works as a human resources executive at the BNY Mellon bank, and Deb Whitewood is a stay-at-home mom, according to the suit.

The lawsuit says that same-sex couples are similarly situated as opposite-sex couples for purposes of marriage.

“Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples build their lives together, plan their futures together and hope to grow old together,” the suit says. “Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples support one another emotionally and financially and take care of one another physically when faced with injury or illness.”

“We only want what every married couple wants – to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family, and the security and protections that only marriage provides,” Deb Whitewood said in statement after the suit was filed.

“Our life is built around our relationship and the family we have made,” she added.

The Pennsylvania law restricts same-sex couples in two ways. It limits marriage to a man and a woman. It also bars recognition by the state of same-sex marriages performed in other states that currently recognize such unions.

“We believe this law cannot stand under any level of scrutiny because excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not further any legitimate government interest. It serves only to insult and hurt lesbian and gay couples and their families,” said Mark Aronchick, a lawyer in Philadelphia who filed the suit along with the ACLU.

“In the past few years, we have seen an astonishing and welcome shift toward Americans embracing the idea that married same-sex couples and those who wish to marry should not be regarded as less than any other family,” said Leslie Cooper of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project.

“Whether it is through litigation, through the legislature, or at the ballot box, we will continue to work to broaden the number of states where same-sex couples can marry,” she said.

The case is Whitewood v. Corbett (13cv1861).

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-lawsuit-first-since-doma-ruling-targets-225156848.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 12, 2013, 12:56:34 am
Yep, the way the USSC ruling was(NOT making gay marriage legalized nationally all at once, that is), it's only opening up a whole new can of worms.

Instead of breaking down the barriers all at once, the Illuminati minions want to do it slowly but surely by continuing to play a game of chicken on both sides of the conflict. Looks like churches in America are really going to face an uphill battle now(Yes, most of them are 501c3 and their hands will be tied in all of this, but nonetheless some very interesting times now).

1John 3:11  For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
1Jn 3:12  Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
1Jn 3:13  Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 13, 2013, 10:12:42 am
Talk about controlled-opposition - look who is representing the anti-gay marriage crowd in the Illinois case...

http://news.yahoo.com/couples-seek-ruling-illinois-gay-125234731.html;_ylt=A2KJ2UZWbOFRcBEAJPfQtDMD
Couples seek ruling in Illinois gay marriage case
7/11/13

CHICAGO (AP) -- Twenty-five couples who filed a lawsuit challenging Illinois' ban on gay marriage asked a judge on Wednesday to rule quickly in their favor, saying a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down part of a law denying federal benefits to married gay couples creates a new urgency in the state.

Illinois legalized civil unions two years ago, but the recent Supreme Court decision applies only to married gay couples.

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois filed a motion for summary judgment in Cook County Circuit Court. They said Judge Sophia Hall could rule on the motion as soon as Aug. 6, when oral arguments are scheduled on a defense motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

"We will say that we should win as a matter of law" under the state constitution, said Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal's marriage project director. "Illinois now is the only thing standing between these families and numerous federal rights."

A lawyer representing five downstate county clerks — who are defending the ban after the state attorney general and Cook County prosecutor refused to do so — said the request is premature because all the evidence has not yet been presented. He also complained that the plaintiffs took nine months to respond to the motion to dismiss the case.

"For them to come in (now) ... has me wondering if they're particularly confident of their legal position as a matter of law," said Peter Breen, executive director of the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm that opposes gay marriage
.


**Thomas More was a Roman Catholic, FYI, who took part in the inquisitions.

Wednesday's motion comes a day after civil rights lawyers in Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn that state's 17-year-old ban on same-sex marriage and to force the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who wed in other jurisdictions.

Same-sex marriage is legal, or soon will be, in 13 states. Federal courts in California are so far the only ones that have said a state same-sex marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution. Meanwhile, federal court challenges are emerging in other states, including Nevada, Hawaii and Michigan. In the coming days and weeks, the ACLU plans to lodge same-sex marriage challenges in North Carolina and Virginia.

It also is pursuing same-sex marriage legislation in several other states and referenda in Oregon and Nevada in the coming years, ACLU lawyers said.

Illinois' lawsuit was filed last year against Cook County Clerk David Orr, a supporter of gay marriage whose office is responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Chicago and the rest of the county. All plaintiffs had applied for and been denied marriage licenses in Cook County.

But in an unusual move, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez declined to defend the state's 17-year-old ban, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, saying it violates the state constitution's equal protection clause. The downstate clerks later were granted permission to intervene.

Alvarez said it was her job to represent Orr, and they both agreed with the plaintiffs. Madigan said she would file arguments in support of the plaintiffs.

John Knight, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Project of the ACLU of Illinois, said only marriage will ensure that gay couples in Illinois get protections that other married couples enjoy, including family medical leave and veterans and tax benefits.

James Darby, an 81-year-old Korean War veteran, said he wants to be buried in Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Illinois, along with his partner of 50 years, Patrick Bova, 75. But as of now, that's impossible.

"I gave up four years of my life during the Korean War, I served my country ... and I came back home and expected to have the same rights as everyone else," said Darby. "But I'm considered a second-class citizen in my own state."

Bova said he's "looking forward to the time when our marriage and its practical and emotional aspects will be realized. I think 50 years is a long time to wait."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on July 14, 2013, 02:31:42 am
Quote
A lawyer representing five downstate county clerks — who are defending the ban after the state attorney general and Cook County prosecutor refused to do so

Okay, they can choose to refuse, but doing so means they are refusing to do their job to represent state employees and the law, thus they shouldn't have a job anymore.

The corruption and bias within the system makes me sick!


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on July 15, 2013, 04:30:30 pm
California High Court Refuses to Revive Gay Marriage Ban

The California Supreme Court refused a request by backers of Proposition 8 to reinstate the measure, which banned gay marriage, after they lost a fight in nation’s highest court to block same-sex weddings.

Proposition 8 backers filed a petition July 12 and asked the state’s high court to order county clerks to enforce the gay-marriage ban, claiming the measure was still valid because a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month didn’t find it was unconstitutional. They asked for an immediate injunction reinstating the law while the lawsuit is pending.

rest: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-15/california-high-court-refuses-to-revive-gay-marriage-ban.html

(http://www.solidthreads.com/media/0b/a20791f1397427f70928cc_s.jpg#California%20the%20land%20of%20fruit%20and%20nuts%20185x185)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 15, 2013, 05:16:11 pm
California High Court Refuses to Revive Gay Marriage Ban

The California Supreme Court refused a request by backers of Proposition 8 to reinstate the measure, which banned gay marriage, after they lost a fight in nation’s highest court to block same-sex weddings.

Proposition 8 backers filed a petition July 12 and asked the state’s high court to order county clerks to enforce the gay-marriage ban, claiming the measure was still valid because a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month didn’t find it was unconstitutional. They asked for an immediate injunction reinstating the law while the lawsuit is pending.

rest: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-15/california-high-court-refuses-to-revive-gay-marriage-ban.html

(http://www.solidthreads.com/media/0b/a20791f1397427f70928cc_s.jpg#California%20the%20land%20of%20fruit%20and%20nuts%20185x185)

The people defending the Prop 8 backers are from the Alliance Defending Freedom. Just looking at parts of their web site(in particular, their leadership), they appear to be a CONTROLLED-OPPOSITION front group. For example, their leadership/board of directors including a George W. Bush aide who helped trying to push illegal immigration, a "missionary" with a church pushing Calvinism teachings, a Notre Dame Univ(Jesuit school) grad, etc.
http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/


Title: Pa. county agrees to same-sex marriage licenses
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 23, 2013, 03:52:59 pm
Pa. county agrees to same-sex marriage licenses
7/23/13
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_COUNTY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-23-16-23-05

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Officials in the third-largest county in Pennsylvania have agreed to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite a state law that bans the practice.

D. Bruce Hanes, the register of wills in Montgomery County in southeast Pennsylvania, said he wants to come down "on the right side of history and the law." He agreed to issue a license Tuesday to two women who contacted him last week.

The women changed their minds, however, after a Tuesday morning discussion with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which has a pending lawsuit challenging the state law.

Their attorney Michael Diamondstein said the couple, two doctors in their 40s, decided "today is not the day" because of fears the marriage would be overturned. He said they still hope to marry in Pennsylvania.


Title: Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 23, 2013, 04:21:17 pm
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/23/federal-judge-orders-ohio-to-recognize-gay-marriage-performed-in-maryland/
7/23/13
Federal judge orders Ohio to recognize gay marriage performed in Maryland

Quote
Addressing the constitutional question, Black explained, “Although the law has long recognized that marriage and domestic relations are matters generally left to the states, the restrictions imposed on marriage by states, however, must nonetheless comply with the [U.S.] Constitution.”

To that end, the court examined the Supreme Court’s decision striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act this June in United States v. Windsor, the 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, and in other decisions addressing differential treatment found to be unconstitutional under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

Looking at Ohio’s bans on recognizing same-sex couples’ out-of-state marriages, while acknowledging its recognition of the marriages of opposite-sex couples who would not be allowed to marry in Ohio, Black concluded, “The purpose served by treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples is the same improper purpose that failed in Windsor and in Romer: ‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law.”

Needless to say, if other courts follow this lead, we’ll have coast-to-coast legal gay marriage as a matter of Full Faith and Credit with the only limitation on gay couples their ability to travel to a pro-SSM state temporarily to get hitched. The Windsor decision that the court cites here in support of its ruling held that section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages performed in pro-SSM states, is unconstitutional. The point of the Ohio ruling is that section 2 of DOMA, which allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, should also be deemed unconstitutional under the logic of Windsor. Is that true, though? Read pages 18-21 of Kennedy’s majority opinion. He’s making two arguments, really. One is that, as the Ohio judge notes, the legislature can’t impose special restrictions on gays consistent with the Equal Protection Clause. The other, though, is that Congress overreached with DOMA by intruding on the states’ sovereign prerogative to regulate marriage as they see fit. It’s not just an equal protection ruling, it’s a federalism ruling too. And unlike Section 3, Section 2 of DOMA attempts to preserve state sovereignty by allowing each state to decide for itself whether gay marriages from other jurisdictions will be recognized there, which might be a complicating factor for Kennedy if this case works its way up to SCOTUS. It shouldn’t be, says the Ohio judge — equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment trumps states’ rights, especially when you have a history of full faith and credit for out-of-state marriages as precedent — but only Kennedy knows which way that shakes out.

Speaking of full faith and credit, a key passage from the Ohio court’s ruling:

Quote
nder Ohio law, as declared by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1958, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Mazzolini v. Mazzolini, 155 N.E.2d 206, 208 (Ohio Sup. Ct. 1958) (marriage of first cousins was legal in Massachusetts and therefore is legal in Ohio regardless of the Ohio statute to the contrary).

Likewise, under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages of minors. See Hardin v. Davis, 16 Ohio Supp. 19, at *22 (Com. Pl. Hamilton Co. May 18, 1945) (“But, although first cousins cannot marry in Ohio, it has been held that if they go to another state where such marriages are allowed, marry, and return to Ohio, the marriage is legal in Ohio”); see also Slovenian Mut. Ben. Ass’n v. Knafelj, 173 N.E. 630, 631 (Ohio App. 1930) (“It is true that, under the laws of Ohio, if she were his first cousin he could not marry her; but they could go to the state of Michigan, or the state of Georgia, and perhaps many other states in the United States, and intermarry, and then come right back into Ohio and the marriage would be legal”); see also Peefer v. State, 182 N.E. 117, 121 (Ohio App. 1931) (where underage couples leave the state to marry in a state in which their marriage is valid and return to Ohio, the marriage cannot be set aside based on Ohio’s law against marriage of underage people); see also Courtright v. Courtright, 1891 Ohio Misc. LEXIS
 161, at *7, aff’d without opinion, 53 Ohio 685 (Ohio 1895) (marriage between persons considered underage in Ohio married in a state where their marriage is legal “cannot be set aside, either because it was not contracted in accordance with the law of this state, or because the parties went out of the state for the purpose of evading the laws of this state”).

Ohio decided long ago that Full Faith and Credit means honoring marriages performed in other jurisdictions even if those marriages conflict with Ohio’s moral and legal preferences. Why should gay marriage be different?

All of that said, there may be an opportunity here for social conservatives. The big problem with a Federal Marriage Amendment, which seeks to ban gay marriage nationwide, is that not only is it opposed by gay-marriage supporters, it’s even opposed by some gay-marriage opponents who resist it as an infringement on federalism. The Ohio court ruling yesterday brings the federalism argument over to the social conservative side: Why shouldn’t the states, the laboratories of democracy, be allowed to follow their own rules on SSM rather than the rules of another state? There may be meaningful support in Congress and at the state level for an initiative that makes section 2 of DOMA a constitutional amendment. I give it near-zero chance of passing, but it’s a better talking point for opponents of SSM than the FMA is.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on July 24, 2013, 06:21:43 am
Ohio Officials Ordered To Recognize Gay Couple’s Marriage

A federal judge has ruled in favor of two Ohio men who want their out-of-state marriage recognized as one of them nears death, a case that's seen as encouraging for same-sex marriage supporters in the state.

Two Ohio men who want their out-of-state marriage recognized as one of them nears death have gotten a ruling in their favor from a federal judge, who wrote that they deserve to be treated with dignity in a case that's seen as encouraging for same-sex marriage supporters in the state.
 
Federal Judge Timothy Black ordered Monday that the death certificate of ailing John Arthur show that he was married and that James Obergefell is his surviving spouse. The ruling means the pair can be buried next to each other in Arthur's family plot, located at a cemetery that only allows descendants and spouses.
 
Ohio does not recognize same-sex marriage.
 
Arthur and Obergefell, both 47, say they've been in love for more than 20 years, that Arthur is likely on the verge of dying from Lou Gehrig's disease, and that "they very much want the world to officially remember and record their union as a married couple," according to a lawsuit filed by the couple Friday against Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Attorney General Mike DeWine and a Cincinnati official responsible for filing death certificates.
 
Obergefell said Tuesday that he and Arthur's fight was about more than just a piece of paper.
 
"To have a federal judge say, `You know what, John and Jim, your relationship exists and it's just as valid as any other married couple,'" Obergefell said. "It's an incredible feeling - that we do matter."
 
Though Black's order was specific to the couple's case, opponents of Ohio's ban on gay marriage were encouraged by it.
 
"This is one more step toward marriage equality in the state of Ohio," said the couple's attorney, Al Gerhardstein, who said he's gotten calls from other same-sex couples who married in other states and are exploring their options to have their marriage recognized in Ohio.
 
He said that Arthur and Obergefell were courageous to take on the legal fight, given Arthur's declining health.
 
"They're in the middle of every couple's worst nightmare," Gerhardstein said. "This is a very difficult time for them and to share this time with the world as they try to solve these problems - it's been a huge sacrifice for them and I admire them."
 
The couple, determined to marry before Arthur died, flew in a special jet with medical equipment to Maryland, which recognizes gay marriage. They wed July 11 inside the plane on an airport tarmac before returning to Cincinnati the same day, according to court records.
 
In his ruling, Black said that historically, Ohio law has recognized out-of-state marriages as valid as long as they were legal where they took place, pointing to marriages between cousins and involving minors.
 
"How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single out same-sex marriages as ones it will not recognize?" Black wrote. "The short answer is that Ohio cannot."
 
DeWine's spokesman, Dan Tierney, said in a statement that "this is a temporary ruling at a preliminary stage under sad circumstances."
 
He said DeWine's office will defend the right of Ohioans to define marriage and that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently emphasized that it is a definition that traditionally lies with states.
 
"Ohio's voters are entitled to the choice they have made on this fundamental issue," he said.
 
Kasich spokesman Robert Nichols said in a statement that the office doesn't comment on pending litigation, "other than to say that the governor believes that marriage is between a man and a woman."
 
Black wrote that the couple would experience irreparable harm without his timely ruling.
 
"The uncertainty around this issue during Mr. Arthur's final illness is the cause of extreme emotional hardship to the couple," Black wrote. "Dying with an incorrect death certificate that prohibits Mr. Arthur from being buried with dignity constitutes irreparable harm."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on July 25, 2013, 10:56:10 am
Illegal Pennsylvania gay marriage licenses show stir in 'battleground states'

On Tuesday, an official in Pennsylvania's Montgomery County made a decision that he said would put him "on the right side of history and the law." He decided that he would issue a same-sex marriage license to anyone who wanted it.

In Pennsylvania, same-sex marriage is illegal, but Register of Wills Bruce Hanes said in a press release that he made his "own analysis of the law." He also noted that the state's attorney general announced on July 11 that she would not defend that state's gay marriage ban against a legal challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union. At least one same-sex couple has already been married in Montgomery County.

In the end, little may change in Pennsylvania. Gov. Tom Corbett (R) is likely to make sure the state's gay-marriage ban is defended in court, and Mr. Hanes's protest might not survive legal scrutiny. But the ferment in Pennsylvania is indicative of a brewing fight in gay marriage's "battleground states." With Delaware, Minnesota, and Rhode Island all legalizing same-sex marriage this year, advocates on both sides of the issue are preparing to spend millions of dollars in a handful of states that could follow their lead.

Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Oregon are at the top of the list, legal experts say. But there is unlikely to be a stampede toward the acceptance of gay marriage, despite the Supreme Court's two landmark rulings this summer.

"It is unlikely that all states will adopt same-sex marriage in the foreseeable future," says Jack Tweedie, director of children and families program at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "The political solution is a state-by-state one, and it will be slow."

Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage, while 37 states ban or do not recognize same-sex marriage. No one expects to see any movement in the South or parts of the Great Plains or inland West. However, a switch may be more realistic in states that already have civil unions for same-sex couples, or have ballot initiatives for legalizing same-sex marriage moving forward.

 Before adjourning in May, the Hawaii Legislature failed to vote on several same-sex marriage bills and is expected to reconvene for a vote in January.

Gay-marriage proponents in New Jersey see an opportunity for overturning last year’s veto of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage by Gov. Chris Christie (R); the override would require 27 Senate and 54 House votes, where Democrats rule 24 to 16 and 48 to 32, respectively.

A gay marriage bill passed the Illinois Senate in February and had the backing of Gov. Pat Quinn (D), but was voted down in the House in May. In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and the gay rights group Lambda Legal filed a motion in Cook County Circuit Court earlier this month, arguing the state's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.
In Oregon, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is on the books, but a referendum to overturn it will take place in November 2014 if it can collect 116,000 signatures. If it is successful, it will come the first state to overturn such a ban.
 
Intensifying the debate is the fact that, in all four states, polling shows that the majority of residents support some form of same-sex marriage.

Freedom to Marry, a gay-rights group based in Washington, is spending more than $6 million to push same-sex marriage in all four states by 2014, and it plans to raise an additional $2 million by the end of the year. The organization then plans to turn its efforts to six more states by 2016. Possible contenders, the organization says, are Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

For its part, the American Civil Liberties Union hired Republican political strategist Steve Schmidt, who worked for President George W. Bush and was a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, to lead an effort to gain Republican support in these states. The organization says it will spend nearly $10 million on such efforts during the next four years.

Proponents of traditional marriage say efforts to turn back these bans will fail because voters have spoken.

Gay advocates are “hugely overplaying their hand. These are states where gay marriage advocates have been saying for months, if not years, that gay marriage is inevitable and they’ve made no progress,” Thomas Peters, a spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), based in Washington, told Reuters earlier this month.

In April, NOM said it would spend $250,000 to defeat any Republican legislator in Illinois or New York who voted to support same-sex marriage bills.
http://news.yahoo.com/illegal-pennsylvania-gay-marriage-licenses-show-stir-battleground-191454306.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 25, 2013, 03:18:59 pm
Illegal Pennsylvania gay marriage licenses show stir in 'battleground states'


Vaughn Walker's ruling striking down Prop 8 in 2010 was the beginning of the end.

It may be a slow freefall(in terms of the entire country legalizing gay marriage when all is said and done), but think of it this way - it's the 2 minute warning in a football game, and the score is lopsided(IOW, the backups are in and it's all but over).

But Jesus says the Days of Lot would come to pass in the end times - so great news is that Rev 19 says Jesus Christ comes back with all of his saints and WE WIN! :)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 25, 2013, 05:19:23 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pa-gay-couples-seek-marriage-county-defies-ban-19758575
7/24/13
Pa. Gay Couple Marries as County Defies State Ban

Five same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses Wednesday in a suburban Philadelphia county defying a state ban on such unions, but the governor's spokesman said the local officials lack the power to suspend state law.

Alicia Terrizzi and Loreen Bloodgood, of Pottstown, were the only couple to marry right away, exchanging vows in a park before a minister and their two young sons.

"We're not setting out to be pioneers. We don't think our family is any different than anybody else," said Terrizzi, a 45-year-old teacher. "We've been waiting a long time for this."

The licenses issued Wednesday in Montgomery County are believed to be the first to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania, the only northeastern state without same-sex marriages or civil unions.

A 1996 Pennsylvania law defines marriage as a civil contract in which a man and a woman take each other as husband and wife, and it says same-sex marriages, even ones entered legally elsewhere, are void in Pennsylvania.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit this month asking a federal judge to overturn the law.

Before that suit played out, officials in the affluent and increasingly Democratic county signaled this week that they would grant same-sex licenses.

They could find themselves in court nonetheless if Republican Gov. Tom Corbett or other state officials challenge their actions. In other states with same-sex marriage bans, licenses issued by defiant local officials have been voided by courts.

Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Ferman, a Republican, said Wednesday evening that a same-sex marriage license isn't legally valid in Pennsylvania, but she said it's not her place to intervene.

"The register of wills cannot change the laws of this commonwealth by simply ignoring them," Ferman said in a statement. "If that change comes, it will be through Pennsylvania courts or the Legislature."

Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, Corbett's spokesman, added that office holders are "are constitutionally required to administer and enforce the laws" but did not immediately say whether any challenge was in the works.

Democratic Attorney General Kathleen Kane, though, has said that she will not defend the ban, leaving Corbett's office to tackle the ACLU lawsuit.

The risk of a court fight down the road did not stop the eight women and two men who picked up marriage licenses.

"Today I feel like a full citizen," said Marcus Saitschenko, 52, of Philadelphia, who came to the suburban courthouse with his partner of 22 years, James Goldstein. "We're just hoping that the state will recognize it."

Montgomery County has the state's third-largest population. D. Bruce Hanes, the register of wills, said he wanted to come down "on the right side of history and the law." His decision came weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ted Martin, the executive director of Equality Pennsylvania, said that, to the best of his knowledge, the licenses were the first same-sex marriage licenses ever issued in Pennsylvania.

Retired marketing executive Ellen Toplin, 60, and partner Charlene Kurland, 69, sought a license Wednesday after 22 years together. Both had previously been married to men, and between them have three children and one grandchild.

"It was expected that I would marry a man, have children and have two cars in the suburbs," Kurland said. "I think it's wonderful for young people today to be able to be who they are."

Two other women had considered applying for a license Tuesday, but they changed course after their lawyer talked to the ACLU, which raised the likelihood of a legal challenge.

Bruce Castor, a Republican county commissioner and a former prosecutor, said opponents could ask Kane's office to challenge the same-sex licenses in court. Alternately, Corbett's office could go to court to block them or a county judge could step in.

The Rev. Craig Andrussier, a nondenominational minister, married Terrizzi and Bloodgood in a brief ceremony that he expects they will someday "tell their grandchildren about."

"I feel great. I feel honored," Andrussier said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 30, 2013, 05:52:06 pm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLORADO_GAY_DIVORCES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-30-17-10-54
7/30/13
First gay divorce finalized in Colorado

DENVER (AP) -- Supporters of Colorado's new civil unions law say a court ruling declaring a same-sex divorce final means gay couples married in other states can legally terminate their relationships in Colorado without uprooting their lives.

Juli Yim and Lorelei Jones wed in Massachusetts in 2009, where same-sex marriage is legal. Yim said that relationship went sour and she found a new partner in Colorado.

Colorado is one of several states that treat gay and straight couples the same in almost every respect through civil unions or domestic partnerships. Gay couples are not allowed to marry in Colorado, but can get divorced there under state statute.

Gay rights advocates said other states also grant divorces to gay couples who were married elsewhere, but some require in-state residency to dissolve the relationship. Gay-rights advocates contend the requirement is more than an inconvenience because it can put lives on hold for those who have moved to different states.

Denver lawyer Kyle Martelon said there is some confusion on how gay couples can get divorced, and the issues are different in other states.

"A lot of people kind of think if they went on vacation to Iowa or Massachusetts or New York and got married and came back to their state, that when they break up they can just go their separate ways," Martelon said. "It's not like that."

Colorado's civil union law, which took effect May 1, provides legal protections including division of property, financial responsibility between former spouses, parental visitation and child support to splitting couples, provided one involved individual has lived in Colorado for more than 90 days.

The new law prohibits anyone who is married or in a civil union in another state from entering a civil union in Colorado with someone other than their legally recognized spouse.

Yim and Suzie Calvin have been friends since high school and plan to marry next May 1, most likely in another state unless Colorado's ban on gay marriage is overturned, which is unlikely to happen soon. Yim's divorce became final Monday in El Paso County, the Fort Collins Coloradoan reported Tuesday (http://tinyurl.com/nzqoxwd ).

Yim's was among seven dissolution cases filed during the first two months the new law was in effect. The other six are pending.

While in some cases, like Yim's, relationships fell apart soon after the new law went into effect. In other cases, Colorado provided an opportunity closer to home for gay couples looking to end relationships legally recognized in other states.

Denver lawyer Tawni Cummings, who represents the petitioner in one of the state's pending dissolution cases, said her client and partner have been in a 32-year lesbian relationship and established a domestic partnership in 2008 in California. They moved to Colorado in 2011 before their relationship came to an end.

"I think (Colorado's civil union law) is really going to provide a lot of protection to people in relationships of this length," Cummings said. "You hear horror stories about people losing a lot of what they've spent a life together building."

Colorado law now recognizes similar legal affirmations from other states, including gay marriage, as civil unions. Under that provision, Cummings' client is seeking to dissolve her California domestic partnership in a Colorado court.

Gay marriage is legal in 13 states and the District of Columbia, and six more states recognize some form of civil unions between same-sex couples.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 01, 2013, 03:36:35 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-couples-file-suit-challenging-virginia-gay-184017970.html
Same-sex couples file suit challenging Virginia gay marriage ban
8/1/13

Two same-sex couples in Virginia filed suit on Thursday asking a federal judge to declare the state’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

The class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of all similarly situated gay and lesbian couples in Virginia, is the latest in a growing number of lawsuits across the country challenging restrictive marriage laws after the US Supreme Court invalidated a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in late June.

The suit, filed in federal court in Harrisonburg, Va., takes aim at state provisions considered among the most restrictive in the nation. In addition to the constitutional ban limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman, Virginia law also bars civil unions, partnership contracts, or any other arrangements that seek to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage to same-sex couples. The state also bars any recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions entered into in other states.

Virginia voters ratified a constitutional amendment in 2006 limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The vote was 57 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed.

“The Commonwealth, without any adequate justification, has enacted an unprecedented series of statutory and constitutional amendments to single out lesbian and gay Virginians by excluding them from the freedom to marry,” the lawsuit says in part.

The Virginia restrictions send a “purposeful message that [Virginia and its public officials] view lesbians, gay men, and their children as second-class citizens who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect, protections, and support that heterosexuals and their families are able to enjoy through marriage,” the suit says.

Currently 29 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. Six other states enforce the same ban through state law.

In contrast, 14 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages.

The Virginia lawsuit was filed on behalf of two lesbian couples by lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union and the gay rights group Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Plaintiffs Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd live in Winchester, Va., with their 8-month-old daughter, Lydia. They were married in Washington, D.C., in 2011, but Virginia does not recognize the union as legally legitimate.

Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff live in Staunton, Va., with their 4-year-old son, Jabari. They have been together in a committed relationship for 11 years and would like to marry, but Virginia official denied their application for a marriage license.

“Plaintiffs are productive, contributing citizens who support their families and nurture their children, but must do so without the same legal shelter, dignity, and respect afforded by the Commonwealth to other families through access to the universally celebrated status of marriage,” the lawsuit says.

“Virginia is home for us. Our families are here, our jobs are here, and our community is a great support for us, but it makes us sad that we cannot get married where we live,” Ms. Harris said in a statement. “It hits me in the gut that two hours from our house same-sex couples in Maryland and D.C. can marry.”

Ms. Berghoff is an Air Force veteran, but because theirs is a same-sex marriage her wife is not eligible to receive the same level of benefits available to opposite-sex couples.

“I’ve been with Victoria for almost a decade now, and it hurts to have our home state say we are not married when it recognizes marriages entered into by different-sex couples who may have only recently met,” Berghoff said.

“Neither history nor tradition can justify the Commonwealth’s discriminatory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage,” the lawsuit says.

“As the Supreme Court has made clear, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give effect to private biases. Liberty and equality, not moral disapproval, must be the guiding framework for a state’s treatment of its citizens,” the suit says.

Lawyers working on the suit said they view the litigation as part of a nationwide effort to end restrictive laws and amendments.

“This is one America. It’s time for the freedom to marry to come to the South,” said Greg Nevins of Lambda Legal. “We do not want a country divided by unfairness and discrimination. Same-sex couples are in loving, committed relationships in every region of our nation and should be treated the same way, whether they live in Maine or Virginia.”

The case, Harris v. McDonnell, is the second lawsuit filed recently in Virginia challenging the state's same-sex marriage ban. Last month a gay couple in Norfolk asked a state judge to declare the Virginia restrictions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Timothy Bostic and Tony London argued in their suit that the restrictions violate their right to equal treatment and equal access to government benefits associated with marriage, such as the ability to file joint tax returns, beneficiary designations for Social Security, and US Navy disability benefits.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on August 01, 2013, 04:06:26 pm
Quote
“The Commonwealth, without any adequate justification, has enacted an unprecedented series of statutory and constitutional amendments to single out lesbian and gay Virginians by excluding them from the freedom to marry,” the lawsuit says in part.

Really?

Quote
Virginia voters ratified a constitutional amendment in 2006 limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The vote was 57 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed.

No, you reprobate, the people of Virginia says so!  ::)



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on August 02, 2013, 05:46:28 am
Kentucky Sued In Federal Court in Effort to Force State to Recognize Homosexual ‘Marriages’

Two homosexual men from Kentucky have filed suit in an effort to challenge the state’s current ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed both out of state and out of the country.  Attorneys for Greg Bourke and Michael DeLeon, both 55, filed the legal challenge on Friday in federal court, contending that Kentucky’s statute violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.  “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky,” states a constitutional amendment passed in 2004. “A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction shall be void in Kentucky.”  Bourke and DeLeon have been together for a reported 31 years and had a 2004 ceremony in Canada, where same-sex “marriage” is legal. However, because Kentucky will not recognize their union as a marriage, the men state that they are being deprived of a number of benefits that are afforded to...     

MORE:http://christiannews.net/2013/08/01/kentucky-sued-in-federal-court-in-effort-to-force-state-to-recognize-homosexual-marriages/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 02, 2013, 07:44:38 am
Kentucky Sued In Federal Court in Effort to Force State to Recognize Homosexual ‘Marriages’

Two homosexual men from Kentucky have filed suit in an effort to challenge the state’s current ban on recognizing same-sex marriages performed both out of state and out of the country.  Attorneys for Greg Bourke and Michael DeLeon, both 55, filed the legal challenge on Friday in federal court, contending that Kentucky’s statute violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.  “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky,” states a constitutional amendment passed in 2004. “A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction shall be void in Kentucky.”  Bourke and DeLeon have been together for a reported 31 years and had a 2004 ceremony in Canada, where same-sex “marriage” is legal. However, because Kentucky will not recognize their union as a marriage, the men state that they are being deprived of a number of benefits that are afforded to...     

MORE:http://christiannews.net/2013/08/01/kentucky-sued-in-federal-court-in-effort-to-force-state-to-recognize-homosexual-marriages/

And this is why the USSC ruled the way they did - NOT legalizing SSM all at once, that is. That way, the NWO minions can get the "culture wars" started up again, with this time the ball being in the pro-gay lobby's court. Remember all those years from Ronald Reagan up until 2006(when the Ted Haggard scandal happened) when the ball was in the court of the "moral majority", and how it ended up doing more damage than good b/c their agenda was to polarize the country(and ultimately make Christians look bad)?

Look like more end times prophecy is coming to pass, thank you Jesus!

Matthew 24:4  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5  For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:6  And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Mat 24:7  For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Mat 24:8  All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Mat 24:9  Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
Mat 24:10  And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 02, 2013, 08:47:26 am
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ri-couples-marriage-law-divorced-19848633
8/2/13
Couples Use New Marriage Law to Divorce(Rhode Island)

While many same-sex couples married on the first day it became legal in Rhode Island, others filed for divorce.

Attorney Neville Bedford tells WPRI-TV ( http://bit.ly/13AhthJ ) his client was married in Massachusetts in 2008, is now living in Rhode Island doing her residency as a doctor, and didn't want to move to get divorced.

He filed her divorce paperwork in Providence Family Court on Thursday, as many other same-sex couples were at city halls, getting marriage certificates.

He says the woman and her wife separated in 2011, but couldn't divorce in Rhode Island then because the state didn't recognize their marriage. The Rhode Island Supreme Court had ruled that same-sex divorces could not be completed in the state after a Fall River, Mass., couple tried to end their marriage in 2006.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 11:45  Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.
Luk 11:46  And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 05, 2013, 10:20:16 am
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323971204578630261068093272.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp
Judges Extend High Court Same-Sex Ruling
Weeks After Key Part of Federal Marriage Act Is Struck Down, Preliminary Findings Show Decision Could Reshape Laws


8/4/13

Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of a federal law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, judges in lower courts are citing and even building on the ruling in battles over state laws concerning same-sex marriage and other issues affecting gays and lesbians.

A federal judge in Cincinnati cited the June ruling in U.S. v. Windsor in finding Ohio's 2004 law banning the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states "likely" to be unconstitutional, at least in regard to the couple that brought the suit.

Another federal judge, in Detroit, relied partly on the Windsor case to temporarily strike down a Michigan law denying domestic benefits for gay and other unmarried couples. Days later, a different federal judge in Detroit cited the Windsor case in allowing a lawsuit challenging Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage to move forward, over the state's objections.

So far, all of the rulings have come during preliminary stages of cases, so they might not lead to state laws being upended. But they show how the Supreme Court's decision could quickly reshape state law on marriage even though it only addressed a single part of a federal statute.

"It's a pattern that's emerging—and it's striking," said David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert on civil-rights law. Rather than finding ways around Windsor, he said, "judges are embracing its principles."

Last week, Minnesota and Rhode Island became the 12th and 13th states to allow same-sex marriage, and gay-marriage backers are targeting a handful of other states—including New Jersey, Oregon, Hawaii and Illinois—where polls show significant support for lifting restrictions on same-sex marriage. Twenty-nine states have constitutional bans on gay marriage.

The effect of Windsor could grow significantly in months to come, say legal experts. More than a dozen challenges to same-sex-marriage laws are pending, nine of which were filed post-Windsor, according to Jon Davidson, the legal director at Lambda Legal, which advocates on behalf of same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. Another case garnering close attention, teed up before the Supreme Court of Missouri, deals with whether gays and lesbians should be entitled to survivor's benefits, issues similar to those in Windsor.

The Windsor case concerned two New York residents, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who were married in Canada in 2007. After Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor tried to claim a federal estate-tax exemption for surviving spouses, but she was barred from doing so by the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that banned the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Ms. Windsor sued, and the case wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down a key part of the law.

Writing for the court's five-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said Congress had no right to undermine a state's decision to give same-sex couples "the recognition, dignity and protection" of marriage. The opinion said little about state laws banning same-sex marriage. Still, the ruling contained some sweeping language, including that DOMA's "principal purpose is to impose inequality."

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that such language would soon show up in lawsuits challenging state laws.

Already, that is happening—to the delight of gay-marriage supporters and the chagrin of some conservative groups. Both sides pointed to the ruling in Ohio last month to support their positions. That case involves two Cincinnati men, one of whom, John Arthur, is, according to court papers, dying of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known as Lou Gehrig's disease.

In July, the couple got married in Maryland, then returned to Ohio and sued the state, asking that it recognize the marriage so Mr. Arthur would be considered "married" at the time of his death, thus making James Obergefell his surviving spouse.

The judge in the case, Timothy Black, cited Windsor extensively before ruling that Ohio's "scheme has unjustifiably created two tiers of couples," and was likely unconstitutional, at least in regard to the plaintiffs.

Same-sex-marriage supporters lauded the ruling, but some conservative groups said Judge Black, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, effectively fired a cannon to kill a mouse. The court could have made a temporary ruling in regard to the individual plaintiffs; "it didn't have to take on Ohio's marriage laws in their entirety," said John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.

A ruling in Missouri likely will garner significant attention, say legal experts. Kelly Glossip sued that state in 2010 to recover survivor's benefits after his longtime partner, a state highway patrolman, was killed on duty on Christmas Day in 2009.

Mr. Glossip lost at the trial court, and he appealed to the state Supreme Court, which asked the parties to file briefs addressing the Windsor ruling. "Windsor and its progeny," wrote Mr. Glossip's lawyers in a brief last month, support "the conclusion that the Court should" review the constitutionality of state survivor-benefit laws with heightened skepticism.

In a brief submitted to the court last week, the state argued that Windsor doesn't take away Missouri's right to define marriage as it sees fit. "Rather, the decision affirms the states' 'power in defining the marital relation,' " it said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 05, 2013, 01:31:11 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/kerry-announces-visas-for-same-sex-couples/
Kerry Announces Visas for Same-Sex Couples
8/2/13

The U.S. visa system will now treat same-sex married couples just as it does straight couples.

Announcing the change during a visit to the U.S. embassy in London on Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry said the State Department was “tearing down an unjust and an unfair barrier that for too long stood in the way of same-sex families being able to travel as a family to the United States.”

The announcement came in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In June, the Court ruled 5-4 to end the federal ban on same-sex marriage and extend federal benefits to married gay couples.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had already announced as much last month, saying visas for gay couples would be processed “in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse,” hours after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling.

For U.S. citizens in same-sex marriages, their foreign spouses will now enjoy easier access to U.S. visas. The same preferential treatment will apply, as it does to straight husbands and wives who seek spousal visas.

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: McChristian on August 05, 2013, 01:48:22 pm
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20130628.gif)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 05, 2013, 01:51:58 pm
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20130628.gif)

It should be "who HOLD the truth in unrighteousness", NOT suppress.

Rom 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on August 05, 2013, 02:08:02 pm
Good catch!

HUGE difference between "hold" and "suppress".

SO subtle!


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 06, 2013, 08:50:54 am
http://www.today.com/news/gay-couples-divorce-comes-extra-costs-6C10660976?ocid=msnhp&pos=1
For gay couples, divorce comes with extra costs
8/6/13

When Jason Dottley and his husband ended their marriage last year, neither bothered to hire a lawyer because the couple agreed they had nothing to fight over.

“Lawyers are what you get when things get difficult,” Dottley figured.

He had no idea just how difficult getting a same-sex divorce would be.

Dottley, an actor and singer, filed for divorce in April 2012 in California, where the court system was unfamiliar with how to handle his case. He eventually sought an attorney’s advice after growing frustrated with the numerous delays.

“The lawyer I hired really couldn’t offer much help,” he said. “His advice was basically, you can either keep plugging away or you can pay me to plug away, but until the courts figure out what they’re doing, I can’t speed this along for you any more than you can.”

It’s a story familiar to a growing number of same-sex couples, even as the gay community continues to celebrate the Supreme Court's decision in June to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. Many hope the ruling will encourage more states to legalize gay marriage, which is currently only legal in 13 states as well as the District of Columbia.

But because gay marriage is relatively new — Massachusetts became the first state to legalize it in 2004 — same-sex couples trying to get divorced have found their attempts come with high price tags and other expensive sacrifices in the few states even willing to grant them.

“Gay and lesbian couples have had to be pioneers," said Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, an advocacy group devoted to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender legal issues. "Until things get familiar, even in states like New York, where same-sex couples can marry, initially there will be a sense of, 'How do we do this?'”

Time together: Reality vs. legality

Many same-sex couples were together for years, even decades, before they were allowed to marry. That can be an expensive problem in a divorce, as most courtrooms will only divide assets starting from the time a couple actually got married.

“A same-sex couple may have only been married for so many years, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t married in their hearts for much longer — and already co-mingled their assets or bought property together,” said Carolyn Satenberg, a New York-based family law attorney who has worked with many couples in this situation.

That’s what happened to Margaret Wenig. The New York-based rabbi got divorced earlier this year from a woman she married in 2008, and with whom she had registered as a domestic partner in 1996.

“But for the 17 years prior to our civil marriage, we lived as if we were married,” she said. “We raised children together, we merged our finances, we made each other the beneficiaries of our pensions and life insurance policies and in our wills.”

The two women were also executors and health care proxies for each other, and gave each other power of attorney. When they split, however, the court would only divide assets accumulated starting from when the couple married in 2008.

“Our divorce has not only been an emotional and financial nightmare for us but for our adult children and members of our extended family as well,” Wenig said.

While the cost of divorce varies by city and state, Satenberg estimates that a traditional, heterosexual divorce in New York typically costs in the neighborhood of $10,000; Wenig said her divorce cost her over $120,000.

Location, location, location

Last week, Minnesota and Rhode Island became the latest of only 13 states to legalize same-sex marriages. Because so few states recognize gay marriages, same-sex couples have often traveled some distance to make their unions official, and don’t live in the states where they got married.

Since divorce is usually granted to couples by the state where they live, states that do not recognize gay marriages typically won’t grant a divorce to a couple whose marriage they view as unlawful. That means individuals would have to return to the state where they got married to get a divorce, but that can be a financial and personal hardship, since many of these states have at least a 6-month minimum residency requirement for divorce applicants.

Sometimes, the decision over whether to grant divorce is also subjective.

Last year in Ohio, for example, where gay marriage was banned by constitutional amendment, a Columbus judge granted two men a divorce. Days later, another judge in the same court denied a divorce to a lesbian couple on the grounds of jurisdiction, pointing to the state’s ban on gay marriage.

'Layers of cost'

Sommer said her organization has seen an uptick in requests from courtrooms across the country seeking additional briefs because they want to be sure they’re taking the right steps. But that extra work keeps the meter running for attorneys of couples trying to get divorced.

Satenberg estimates that same-sex couples usually pay twice as much for divorces as their heterosexual counterparts. Triple the price if children are involved.

“By default, either one or both of the parents are not the biological parent. And that brings in an entirely new set of legal problems if the couple hasn’t taken the appropriate steps to secure legal standing,” Satenberg said. “Some couples think, ‘Oh, we love each other. We’re going to stay together forever.’ They don’t really think, ‘I should adopt my son, I should adopt my daughter.’”

Federal income tax laws also can complicate matters. Same-sex couples splitting property or assets may get zapped with a federal gift tax that doesn’t apply to straight couples.

“Heterosexual marriage has been a part of our society for as long as we’ve been a country, and therefore our case law reflects those issues, and divorces and lawyers can navigate through a pretty well defined area of law,” Satenberg said.

But when there are no clear answers, lawyers need to spend more time making motions. They need to craft legal arguments where none have previously existed because this is a new area of law.”

Dottley got married in California in October 2008 during the brief window when the state allowed gay couples to wed. But when he started to seek a divorce in 2012, he found himself tangled in paperwork immediately.

“They would repeatedly say, ‘Well, wait a minute. We have to create a whole new form to incorporate same-sex marriages into this dissolution process,” he said of his interaction with the legal system. “A good 50 percent of the delays were from the court not knowing how to handle things.”

Dottley says he watched as many heterosexual friends experienced a much smoother divorce process. "No else was going through what I did at the time," he said.

Finding a lawyer familiar with the specialized practice of gay divorce can be expensive, so it helps to find someone sympathetic to the cause.

Ohio attorney Tom Addesa has successfully handled several same-sex divorces in Ohio, and charges a bargain $1,500 flat fee to handle uncontested same-sex divorce cases. He said a straight couple might pay about $5,000 if he were to charge his regular $250 hourly rate, but that a gay couple would pay far more because of additional documents he would need to prepare.

Gay couples are also more likely to have their divorce applications rejected, Addesa notes, which can lead to appeals, easily adding another $10,000 to the bill depending on how much work that entails.

Those are layers of cost that straight couples never have to worry about,” Addesa said.

The stigma of starting over

Elizabeth Schwartz, a Miami attorney who works primarily with gay and lesbian families, said it’s time for the nation to start addressing divorce laws for same-sex couples. Otherwise, some people may start to disregard the law altogether.

“What some couples are doing, and it’s really frightening, is saying, ‘Well, I live in Florida, and marriage isn’t recognized here anyway, so what’s the difference? I’m just going to get married in this new relationship. The other one — who cares?’” she said. “Well, I’m sorry, that’s bigamy.”

She tells those individuals that if the relationship meant enough for them to get married in the first place, then it was real enough to get out — legally.

“I feel like I’m pissing on everybody’s marriage parade when I talk about divorce, but you can’t, as a pragmatic, family lawyer, avoid it,” she said. “Sometimes, a divorce is a beginning of a bright new chapter for people.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 06, 2013, 08:53:51 am
Luke 11:46  And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Luke 11:47  Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
Luk 11:48  Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
Luk 11:49  Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
Luk 11:50  That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
Luk 11:51  From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
Luk 11:52  Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on August 06, 2013, 03:58:48 pm
Quote
Since divorce is usually granted to couples by the state where they live, states that do not recognize gay marriages typically won’t grant a divorce to a couple whose marriage they view as unlawful. That means individuals would have to return to the state where they got married to get a divorce, but that can be a financial and personal hardship, since many of these states have at least a 6-month minimum residency requirement for divorce applicants.

Well, that's just too bad! Welcome to matrimony and the state's way of doing things.  ::)

And as for couples together before being "married"? Unless it's a "common law" state, sorry! That's the way the marriage system works.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on August 07, 2013, 09:02:17 am
Federal Judges Using Supreme Court’s DOMA Ruling to Halt State Statutes Protecting Marriage

In what some are describing as a ‘reverberation’ throughout America, several federal judges across the nation are citing the Supreme Court decision that struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as their basis to halt state statutes pertaining to marriage protections.
 
As previously reported, last month, a federal judge in Ohio granted two homosexual men an injunction against a state law that prohibits the recognition of same-sex “marriage” ceremonies performed in other states. The men had traveled to Maryland after the state began issuing licenses, but found that their home state of Ohio would not recognize the union.
 
Therefore, they sued the state, and Judge Timothy Black, an Obama appointee, put a temporary halt on the law as the case moves forward, citing the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling in U.S. v. Windsor.
 
“The purpose served by treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples is the same improper purpose that failed in Windsor and in Romer: ‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law,” Black wrote. “Although the law has long recognized that marriage and domestic relations are matters generally left to the states, the restrictions imposed on marriage by states, however, must nonetheless comply with the [U.S.] Constitution.”

Similarly, in Michigan, two separate federal judges granted injunctions against state statutes pertaining to homosexuality, citing the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in June. One of the cases surrounds two lesbians who are seeking to marry and adopt children.
 
“Construing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, and in view of the Supreme Court’s current statement of the law,” Judge Bernard Friedman wrote, “this court cannot say that plaintiffs’ claims for relief are without plausibility. Plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court and they shall have it.”
 
A second case dealt with two men who were challenging the state’s denial of benefits to the partners of homosexuals.

“[I ]t is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose — indeed, perhaps the sole purpose — of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees,” stated Judge David Lawson.
 
He mocked the state’s defense as being “close to striking [the court] with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.”
 
Therefore, just a few months out from the ruling, some speculate that the Supreme Court decision–although centered on a federal matter–could have an impact nationwide on the states.

“It’s a pattern that’s emerging–and it’s striking,” professor David Cruz from the University of Southern California told the Wall Street Journal. “Judges are embracing [the Supreme Court's] principles.”
 
“Needless to say, if other courts follow this lead, we’ll have coast-to-coast legal gay marriage as a matter of Full Faith and Credit with the only limitation on gay couples [being] their ability to travel to a pro-SSM state temporarily to get hitched,” concurred the website Hot Air.
 
A number of similar lawsuits are currently pending across the country, including in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia, with the ACLU and others vowing to file a number of other legal challenges nationwide.
 
“It’s unfortunate that there are people out there who want to ban this state from defining marriage as it has been defined by virtually everyone since the beginning of recorded history,” the Kentucky Family Association told reporters.

http://christiannews.net/2013/08/07/federal-judges-using-supreme-courts-doma-ruling-to-halt-state-statutes-protecting-marriage/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 07, 2013, 09:07:53 am
I know Jesus says that the last days will be as the Days of Lot, but at the same time I'll admit it bewilders me sometimes why even so-called "conservatives" are standing down on this issue. They're not standing down on their pro-life/pro-gun rights stances(at least not completely, and not yet), but it's this agenda they are standing down on.

And come to think of it too, you never hear Alex Jones, Lindsey Williams, and the "truth" movement expose this issue.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on August 07, 2013, 02:15:15 pm
"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." 1 John 4:5 (KJB)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 14, 2013, 12:05:07 pm
This isn't the first article of its kind(trying to link gay marriage to a better economy) I've read - ultimately, imho, slowly but surely the entire country will end up giving in(as well as the modern-day, 501c3 church) b/c of just that, the love of money. And besides, the global, debt-ridden economy is already in freefall mode. So any "spurts" like short-term revenue coming in like this is nothing but just that...TEMPORARY, and nothing but a DANGLING CARROT in the rabbit hole to lure people in.

And to boot, the US economy should never have become consumer-driven like it was modeled after since the 1980's.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/gay-marriage-shows-states-luring-discriminated-couples-economy.html?cmpid=yhoo
8/14/13
Gay Marriage Shows States Luring Discriminated Couples: Economy

Hans Bernhard and Mitch Null say they may leave North Carolina -- taking their daughter, their jobs as a veterinarian and an information technology business operations manager at Cisco Systems Inc. and the tax revenue from their properties.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the couple is considering moving to Maryland, where they could have a recognized marriage and guaranteed access to the related federal benefits. Bernhard could also become a lawful father to the couple’s 1-year-old daughter, Eva, since North Carolina law prevents residents from adopting a child if they aren’t married to the legal parent.

“As Eva grows, when friends of hers ask her, it would be nice for her to be able to say, ‘My dads are married, and they love each other dearly, and they love me dearly, and we’re just like anybody else,’” said Bernhard, 34.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia, making up 34 percent of gross domestic product, have legalized same-sex marriage, including Minnesota and Rhode Island, where laws took effect Aug. 1. Laws ban the practice in 35 states, with five of those allowing civil unions or domestic partnerships. New Mexico does not expressly sanction or ban same-sex matrimony; New Jersey allows civil unions.

Bernhard and Null’s dilemma illustrates the economic benefits and consequences of a state’s same-sex marriage policy. Following the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling, gay rights proponents and some economic development officials say states with gay-friendly laws can leverage them for financial gain, while those with prohibitive policies will miss out.

Losing Talent
The Supreme Court ruling will force some states to examine whether it’s worth losing out on talent and businesses that are attracted to areas that allow same-sex marriages, said Richard Florida, a professor at the University of Toronto Rotman School of Management. Acceptance of gay communities signals cultural openness and attracts highly educated people and innovators, Florida wrote in his 2002 book “The Rise of the Creative Class.”

“States that recognize the rights of gay and lesbian households, they provide a signal to other people that those are the kind of places that they want to be in,” Florida said. “For many highly skilled, highly educated people, this is a nontrivial factor in decision making.”

Legal Questions
Following the Supreme Court ruling, gay couples legally married in one state can access some benefits regardless of where they live, because recognition is based on the law of the place where the ceremony took place, said Amanda Goad, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in New York. Green-card sponsorships and federal student aid are among the privileges that follow this standard. Some other programs, including Social Security, look to the law of the state where people reside, Goad said, so living in a state that doesn’t recognize the marriages of same-sex couples might bar them from receiving those benefits.

The U.S. is divided between areas that are high-income, high-education and more progressive and those that have lagged in development and remained more traditional in their outlook, Florida said. As states “dig in their heels” and defend their bans on gay marriage following the Supreme Court ruling, “those divides get bigger, not smaller. It simply reinforces a long-standing process of divisions that we’ve seen.”

Relocation Options
It is persuading some couples, such as Bernhard and Null, to consider moving. It may be easier to relocate to places that are geographically close and have legalized same-sex marriage, according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, which conducts studies on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.

Couples with access to federal benefits tied to marriage might rely less heavily on state programs, so “there’s some evidence that states could save a little money,” he said.

Some state officials are hoping it might make them a little money as well. The legalization of same-sex marriage in Rhode Island will do more than just honor “critical basic civil rights,” Governor Lincoln Chafee, a Democrat, said in an Aug. 7 statement.

“As our reputation for tolerance and equality spreads beyond our borders and throughout Rhode Island, the long-term benefits of marriage equality will start attracting talented and creative minds from all over the world,” he said. “New employers will want to put down roots in a state where they can find the brightest who want to work free of the distraction and worry of inequality.”

Wall Street
Some Wall Street executives, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein, have helped champion the cause. In a June 2011 op-ed article on the website of Crain’s New York Business, John Mack, who was then chairman of Morgan Stanley, said marriage equality is another way New York City can attract talent “to remain a global economic leader.”

Others argue extending federal advantages to same-sex couples may increase the burden on some companies as they become responsible for the spouses and families of gay employees.

“Whatever economic benefits that there might be because of gay marriage will be erased by a tsunami of health-care costs, and businesses will bear the brunt of those increased costs and that is bad for the nation’s economy,” said Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis at the American Family Association, a non-profit organization based in Tupelo, Mississippi, that supports heterosexual marriage.

Economic Windfall
States analyzed by the Williams Institute would see economic benefit from legalizing same-sex marriage, based on research that pre-dates the Supreme Court ruling.

“The states that recognize same-sex couples and allow them to marry are likely to be in a better budget position, they may find that they’re more attractive places to live,” Research Director M.V. Lee Badgett said, though effects such as improved productivity and worker loyalty are “really hard” to quantify.

One of the more tangible economic benefits for states allowing same-sex marriages comes from gay weddings and related tourism. Some 866 in-state same-sex couples chose to marry in the year after Iowa’s April 2009 decision to legalize such unions, while an additional 1,233 out-of-state pairs traveled to the state to get a marriage license, according to data obtained by the Williams Institute.

That translated into as much as an additional $12.9 million from wedding spending and tourism for state and local economies and as much as about $936,600 in tax revenue, the group estimated in a report.

Illinois’s Loss
In neighboring Illinois, where same-sex marriage is banned, legalization would generate as much as $103.2 million in wedding and tourism spending in the first three years, according to the Williams Institute.

While there is no state-level campaign in Iowa aimed at attracting gay couples and travelers, the Quad Cities region is considering advertising in gay-friendly publications and plans to track the economic impact of the population, according to the area’s convention and visitors bureau. The region, comprised of five cities that straddle the Mississippi River where it divides Iowa and Illinois, became a local destination for marriages and receptions following legalization.

After an initial surge of weddings subsided, interest is starting to rekindle as more states legalize the marriages and after the high court’s ruling, said Dan Gleason, director of sales at the bureau. Gleason, 28, and his partner tentatively plan to wed next year in hopes that same-sex marriage will by then be recognized in Illinois, where they just bought their “dream house,” he said. Otherwise, the couple will host both the wedding and reception in Iowa.

Gallup Poll
Nationwide estimates of how much states win or lose in light of the ruling are tough to create, Gates said. The gay population is small, making economic benefits limited. An October 2012 Gallup poll found that 3.4 percent of the nation’s adults identify lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Additionally, the number of couples who would consider relocating to a different state is probably limited, he said.

North Carolina’s 2012 amendment, the most recent constitutional ban in the U.S., has caused gay individuals to question moving there for jobs as it starkly contrasts with national developments, said James Miller, executive director of the LGBT Center of Raleigh.

Company Location
“I have people contacting the center probably twice a day, that they work for a really great company, like Cisco, Citrix is coming in downtown Raleigh, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Blue Cross Blue Shield is a big one,” Miller said.

Welcoming all people is necessary for states that want to “flourish economically and be an engine for innovation,” Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook Inc. and a native of Hickory, North Carolina, said in an e-mail. Hughes, now the editor-in-chief and publisher of the New Republic magazine, wrote an open letter to the North Carolina General Assembly in 2011 opposing the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“Entrepreneurs are very careful when deciding where to start a company,” said Hughes, who now lives in Shokan, New York, with his husband Sean Eldridge. “Building a business in a state that denies basic rights to LGBT couples is difficult to justify to potential employees -- straight or gay.”

The ACLU is pursuing federal court cases in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia to challenge same-sex marriage bans, according to a statement. That gives Null and Bernhard enough reason to stick around for another year or two, the couple said. If the law doesn’t change, the decision to leave will be easier, Bernhard said.

“We’d be moving away from both of our respective families, for one, and we’d be moving away from our respective jobs,” Bernhard said, yet the prospects of gaining a legal marriage could outweigh those costs. “I’ve told Mitch several days recently, let’s sell our property here and move to Maryland.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Victoria Stilwell in Washington at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net; Jeanna Smialek in Washington at jsmialek1@bloomberg.net; Meera Louis in Washington at mlouis1@bloomberg.net



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 14, 2013, 12:08:11 pm
One of the more tangible economic benefits for states allowing same-sex marriages comes from gay weddings and related tourism. Some 866 in-state same-sex couples chose to marry in the year after Iowa’s April 2009 decision to legalize such unions, while an additional 1,233 out-of-state pairs traveled to the state to get a marriage license, according to data obtained by the Williams Institute.

That translated into as much as an additional $12.9 million from wedding spending and tourism for state and local economies and as much as about $936,600 in tax revenue, the group estimated in a report.

And every time this is the sales pitch carrot they put up - this is no different from cities, even bankrupt ones like Detroit, for pitching these multi-million dollar sports stadiums so supposedly it would build up their respective cities economies.

Ultimately, it looks like only a *select few* profit from this(ie-the rich people), and NOT the entire city. Otherwise, where are all these *job creations* for the middle class?


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on August 14, 2013, 02:47:52 pm
Quote
Ultimately, it looks like only a *select few* profit from this(ie-the rich people), and NOT the entire city. Otherwise, where are all these *job creations* for the middle class?

Yeah, that has been a staple illusion in a city's box of tricks.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 15, 2013, 12:13:05 pm
These Prop 8 ban supporter court challengers need to read their bibles...

As it was in the Days of Lot, and Romans 1:18-32...

http://news.yahoo.com/court-challenge-fails-stop-calif-gay-marriages-221238695.html
Court challenge fails to stop Calif. gay marriages
8/15/13

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to halt gay marriages in the state, leaving opponents of same-sex weddings few — if any — legal options to stop the unions.

The brief, unanimous ruling tossed out a legal challenge by ban supporters without addressing their legal arguments in support of Proposition 8, a ballot measure passed by voter in 2008 that banned gay marriage.

Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that wants to end gay marriage, said the ruling does not end the debate in California. He called on lawmakers to ban gay marriage but declined to say whether a legal challenge will be filed.

"Though the current California officials are unwilling to enforce the state constitution, we remain hopeful that one day Californians will elect officials who will," he said.

Supporters of gay marriage were girding for a continued fight.

"By now, I suppose we know better than to predict that Prop 8 proponents will actually give up their fight," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. "But it's certainly fair to say that their remaining legal options are increasingly absurd."

The state high court ruling came about two months after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the issue, leaving in place a lower-court ruling that struck down the ballot measure as unconstitutional.

On June 28, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Prop 8 supporters filed an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court arguing that the federal lawsuit at issue applied only to the two couple who filed it and to Alameda and Los Angeles counties, where they live. They claimed the marriage ban remained law in 56 counties since the federal lawsuit at issue wasn't a class action lawsuit on behalf of all California gay couples wishing to marry.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker previously issued a sweeping opinion saying Prop 8 violated equal protection guarantees in the U.S. Constitution by denying the two California couples a chance to marry in the state.

Prop 8 backers were briefly joined by San Diego County Clerk Ernest Dronenburg Jr., who filed a nearly identical legal challenge with the state Supreme Court last month urging an immediate halt to gay weddings.

Dronenburg, however, withdrew his lawsuit last week, saying his challenge was too similar to that of Prop 8 backers to merit a separate legal bid.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 16, 2013, 01:46:52 pm
A couple of patterns I'm noticing with these ongoing cases since the USSC ruling...

1) This is how they keep the Hegelian Dialectic going - very SLOWLY developing, and keeping both sides of the coin going at each other with a war of words. This way, when all is said and done, after wearing everyone out, they get everyone to some kind of "compromise". Otherwise, the judge in this case probably already has the ruling set in stone.

2) At almost every checkpoint like this, both Hegelian Dialectic sides say stuff like, "This IS the turning point, so there's hope we can win and overcome this!". For example - the controlled-opposition pro-family side will act like if they can campaign and stop New Jersey from accepting gay marriage, then there's hope that gay marriage will stop around the country. Seriously, they said this way back in 2010 after Vaughn Walker made that ruling striking down CA's Prop 8.

Again, Jesus Christ clearly says the end times is as in the Day of Lot!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324139404579015172872636220.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp
Gay Marriage Case Is Stalled in New Jersey
8/15/13

TRENTON—A New Jersey judge declined to rule Thursday on a case seeking to bring gay marriage to New Jersey following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down key provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Attorneys arguing the case said they weren't surprised by the postponement in the complex case, but it was a blow to the gay couples who have petitioned for marriage for years.

"Why do we have to wait even one more day?" said Cindy Meneghin, a 55-year-old Butler, N.J., resident who is a plaintiff in the case with her partner of 38 years and their two children. "The state of New Jersey wants to treat me like a second-class citizen when it comes to my relationship."

State attorneys have fought against the effort, arguing New Jersey's current civil unions suffice for gay couples. Republican Gov. Chris Christie supports civil unions but is against gay marriage, and he vetoed a bill passed last year that would have allowed for it.

Advocates are working to override Mr. Christie veto in the Legislature, and have made progress in appealing to some Republicans, said Troy Stevenson, executive director of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's main gay rights group.

The case is bound to be appealed once a decision is handed down and will likely end up before the New Jersey Supreme Court, a process that could take months, said Peter Verniero, a former justice on the state's highest court. "This issue is destined for appellate review," said Mr. Verniero, an attorney at Sills Cummis & Gross who isn't involved in the case.

Thirteen states and Washington, D.C., have enacted gay marriage. New Jersey is the only state on the East Coast north of Maryland not to allow it. Polls have shown growing support for gay marriage in the state. New Jersey has same-sex civil unions, which were made legal in 2006 and provide all the benefits offered by the state to married couples.

Six gay couples and their children sued the state in 2011, arguing that civil unions didn't provide equal protection under the law and frequently triggered practical difficulties. The parties were concluding a lengthy fact-finding process when the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA was handed down, prompting the plaintiffs to ask for an immediate ruling on the case.

Nationwide, the landscape of federal benefits offered to gay couples has evolved since the DOMA ruling. The Department of Defense said Wednesday that it would extend federal benefits to same-sex spouses in the military.

There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that the DOMA ruling would extend, including tax benefits and family medical leave. But the ruling applied to marriage—not to civil unions—so the New Jersey plaintiffs argued they weren't being treated equally under the law.

"These rulings are coming out so fast and furious," said Lawrence Lustberg, a lawyer from the Gibbons firm and one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs. "Discrimination is being visited on our clients."

On Thursday, both parties had their first opportunity to present their arguments in Superior Court in Mercer County since the DOMA ruling. Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson, a Democrat who was first appointed by former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman in 2001, asked tough questions of both sides during the almost two-hour hearing without tipping her hand as to how she might rule.

**Christine Todd Whitman is a Republican who worked in George W's admin - I know both "parties" are opposition-controlled, but nonetheless her actions is another example to show both "parties" are one and the same.

The plaintiffs argued that the DOMA ruling has left gay couples in New Jersey with unequal treatment, and that denying them those benefits goes against the state Constitution.

"There is ongoing hardship every single day for people who are denied their federal benefits because for the fact that they are not permitted to be married," said Mr. Lustberg said.

The state, however, argued that it was too early to hear the case because the Supreme Court ruling was handed down less than two months ago.

"That's the danger when we are dealing with a new decision," said Kevin Jespersen, an assistant attorney general who argued on behalf of the state. "We would be stepping into a very fast-flowing stream where the footing is very uncertain."

Judge Jacobson said she would take supplemental briefs by both parties by Aug. 28 and make a decision on the case in September at the earliest. "It's a very difficult issue," she said in her closing remarks.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 19, 2013, 11:25:41 am
8/18/13
S.C.’s gay-marriage ban heading for court?

South Carolina’s constitutional ban on gay marriage could be headed to court in the coming years.

SC Equality, the gay-rights advocacy group, has started a volunteer legal team to “explore options” for same-sex couples living in South Carolina now that the U.S. Supreme court has ordered the federal government to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. South Carolina is one of the top states in the country where same-sex couples identify themselves as husbands or wives, according to the U.S. Census.

Columbia attorney Malissa Burnette is leading the effort. She says the group is “proceeding very carefully” at first, focusing on individual cases. But the ultimate goal, she said, is to overturn South Carolina’s constitutional ban on gay marriage, which voters approved in 2006.

“I’m very optimistic that it’s been seven, nearly eight years now, and I believe that even in South Carolina, people have become more aware that in their families, in their neighborhoods and in their workplace, there are gay and lesbian people that they see and speak with everyday, and that’s OK,” she said. “People are beginning to accept that more readily than they did in 2006.”

But the Palmetto Family Council has its own legal team ready to counter any effort to overturn the amendment.

Director Oran Smith says he relies on a statewide network of attorneys trained by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a national legal group that, according to its website, is devoted to “religious liberty, the sanctity of life and marriage and family.”

Smith said he does not think his group would intervene in specific cases of same-sex couples seeking federal benefits. But it would intervene if “we saw a pattern of the courts not respecting the marriage amendment in South Carolina.”

“We would certainly want to assess whether we would want to become involved on an individual case by case basis,” Smith said. “Hopefully we would not need to do that.”

The 2006 amendment passed with 78 percent of the vote. In December, the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling found 62 percent of South Carolina voters said same-sex marriage should not be allowed, while 27 percent said it should be allowed (10 percent were not sure).

According to the U.S. Census, 7,214 same-sex couples live in South Carolina, or 4.01 couples per 1,000 households – ranked 38th in the country. Vermont was the No. 1 state, with 8.36 couples per 1,000 households.

But 22 percent of South Carolina’s same-sex couples identify themselves as husbands or wives, the 16th-highest percentage of the country. Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, is No. 1 with 44 percent.

Burdette said there are 1,100 places in federal law where a protection or responsibility is based on marital status. She said federal agencies traditionally have deferred to state laws to determine whether a marriage is valid. So if a couple is married in Maryland and they move to South Carolina, Burdette said that is where her legal team could get involved.

“Why should your ZIP code determine your civil rights?” Burdette said. “It’s very disconcerting.”

Smith said his group believes marriage between one man and one woman “is the gold standard for kids.”

“Anything that harms that ability in a family is something we oppose,” he said.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/08/18/2928052/scs-gay-marriage-ban-heading-for.html#storylink=cpy


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 20, 2013, 06:23:43 pm
8/20/13

Hawaii to push for gay marriage legislation

Hawaii's House Democrats are looking to pass a bill that would legalize gay marriage.


Hawaii's House Democrats are set to meet this week to discuss whether they have the votes to pass a bill that would legalize gay-marriage in the islands.

If the party determines that there is sufficient support and senators can agree on a language that would withstand court challenges, Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) will be the one to call for a special session to deal with the issue.

“I think we can put together something that can achieve a solid majority, that will give us the opportunity to establish marriage equity in the state of Hawaii commensurate with the recent Supreme Court decisions, and will satisfy and resolve the issues that are presently before the appeals court on the mainland,” Abercrombie told a gathering of state Democrats.

Abercrombie’s chief of staff, Blake Oshiro, is currently working on the language with the state attorney general's office. According to the State Senate leadership, they will in fact have the votes to pass the same-sex marriage bill.

Hawaii passed a law in 1998 giving the legislature power to define marriage as heterosexual, but the legislation was partially reversed in 2011 when civil unions between same-sex couples became legal.

Even though Democrats have an overwhelming majority in both chambers, Abercrombie needs to call a special session to pass the bill because they can’t meet the two-thirds threshold to call one themselves.


Read more: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/08/20/Hawaii-to-push-for-gay-marriage-legislation/3801377027719/#ixzz2cYRrVhY0


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 21, 2013, 12:52:40 pm
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130820/NEWS05/308200049/1001/NEWS
Coalition to defeat Indiana gay marriage ban has new name, Republican campaign manager

Former Messer aide Megan Robertson will lead the effort

8/20/13

Opponents of the effort to add a ban on gay marriage to the Indiana constitution say they will announce a new coalition Wednesday that comes with bipartisan firepower.

The kickoff for the coalition, called Freedom Indiana, comes as gay-rights groups and allies gear up for the fight next year in the General Assembly — and, if necessary, at the ballot box.

Several groups will be joined at noon in Downtown Indianapolis’ Artsgarden by supportive companies, including Eli Lilly and Co. and Cummins. Also on hand will be a new campaign manager who is a veteran of Republican campaigns.

Freedom Indiana will be run by Megan Robertson, the group said. She managed last year’s winning campaign of U.S. Rep. Luke Messer, R-Ind., an opponent of gay marriage, and was his communications director until recently.

Robertson also managed Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard’s reelection campaign in 2011, was political director for U.S. Sen. Dan Coats’ 2010 campaign and has worked on other campaigns. She was not available for comment Tuesday.

“She’s absolutely what we need, and she knows what to do,” said Rick Sutton, executive director of Indiana Equality Action, which lobbied unsuccessfully against the amendment before the legislature approved it in 2011. He will be the coalition’s president.

“Before it’s finished, we will have the assets and resources we need to get our message out,” Sutton said. “It is our goal to be taken very seriously and to make sure people feel empowered to contact their legislators and to not let narrow arguments win the day.”

The coalition will face off against supporters of the amendment as well as Indiana legislative leaders who are clearing its way and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican who has voiced support.

The proposed amendment, which also would prohibit civil unions, won approval by wide margins in the General Assembly in 2011.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 21, 2013, 01:08:00 pm
States Grapple With Same-Sex Marriage Rulings Via Bills, Ballots and the Bench
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation/july-dec13/gaymarriage_08-20.html

I just skimmed through this, but this is typical continuing Hegelian Dialectic talk from both controlled-opposition sides - for the most part, these pro-family groups like the National Organization for Marriage act like there's still a good chance to defeat this pro-gay lobby agenda. However, reality is that the rotten seeds were planted YEARS ago(ie-Reagan appointing Vaughn Walker to that same federal court position where he struck down Prop 8 3 years ago. Reagan rallying a campaign against the 1978 Prop 6 Briggs Initiative in CA, that would have banned sodomites in public workplaces like public schools. Reagan appointing Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy to the USSC, both of whom recently voted to strike down DOMA and Prop 8. And there there was the whole "Franklin Cover Up" that went on during Reagan/Bush, and was covered up by the MSM), and now is reaping its ugly fruit. And during this time, these pro-family groups just turned a blind eye BEFORE its ugly fruit got reaped.

And now they wonder why sodomy has hijacked this country and world in our present day?

Gal 6:7  Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 21, 2013, 06:34:23 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/nm-county-issues-same-sex-marriage-licenses-205850830.html
NM county issues same-sex marriage licenses
8/21/13

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Gay couples rushed to a courthouse in Las Cruces on Wednesday after the county clerk decided to issue same-sex marriage licenses in a surprise move that came as several legal challenges on the practice make their way through the courts.

"I was in a coffee shop grading dissertations when my partner sent me an email saying, 'you want to get married?'" said Char Ullman, 51. "I went home to brush my teeth and headed to the courthouse."

Dona Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins said his office had provided 35 licenses to same-sex couples compared to four or five given on an average day to heterosexual couples.

"It's a happy office today. Lots of happy people," he said. "One of the first couples that came in today said they had been waiting 31 years. Another couple says they've been waiting 43 years. It's time to stop waiting."

Jeff Williams, a public information officer in the county's government and a reverend with Universal Life Church, said he was marrying same-sex couples all day long while wearing his rainbow-colored tie.

Outside the courthouse, television reporters were busy interviewing the people getting married and there was no sign of any protesters.

Ellins said he had carefully read state laws and concluded the "state's marriage statutes are gender neutral and do not expressly prohibit Dona Ana County from issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples."

Later in the day, New Mexico Attorney General Gary King said he had no plans to challenge the move by Ellins or another other county clerks who might allow the practice.

Ellins said he had been considering issuing the licenses since June, when King released a position paper saying state laws don't allow same-sex marriage. King had asked county clerks to hold off on issuing licenses, even though he believes the laws are unconstitutional.

Ellins, however, said "any further denial of marriage licenses to these couples violates the United States and New Mexico Constitution and the New Mexico Human Rights Act."

"I see no reason to make committed couples in Dona Ana County wait another minute to marry," he added in his statement.

King said Wednesday that "we feel like our position that the law is unconstitutional presents a barrier to us from bringing any action." Still, he warned that marriage licenses issued by county clerks could become invalid if the state Supreme Court later rules that same-sex marriage is not allowed.

County and city officials around the country have taken it upon themselves in recent years to issue same-sex licenses, with one of the first and most highly publicized cases in San Francisco in 2004.

The city issued the licenses for about a month before being ordered by courts to stop. The marriages were eventually invalidated. But gay marriage is now legal in that state.

Dona Ana County became the first county in New Mexico to actively issue same-sex licenses since a Sandoval County clerk issued 64 licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. Then-Attorney General Patricia Madrid soon declared the licenses were invalid and a court later ordered the clerk to stop.

Ullman and her longtime partner, Carrie Hamblen, 45, were among the same sex couples to receive marriage licenses on Wednesday in Las Cruces.

"People started clapping as soon as we walked in," Ullman said. "And more are coming from Albuquerque trying to make it here by this afternoon."

On Tuesday, a same-sex couple from Santa Fe asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to streamline the handling of lawsuits seeking to legalize gay marriage in the state.

State Rep. Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, a lawyer who represents the couple, said the goal is to get a quick lower court decision and clear the way for an expedited ruling by the state's highest court.

The justices were being asked to consolidate all cases involving the issue and assign a district court judge in Santa Fe, who would issue a ruling that would go directly to the state Supreme Court for review.

Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar said she does not plan on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of pending lawsuits.

"I believe it's in the right place — the courts," Salazar said.

Couples in Bernalillo County — the state's largest county and the location of Albuquerque — also are part of a lawsuit seeking to have same-sex marriage recognized in that county.

Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver said she was conferring with attorneys but not planning to follow Dona Ana County.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico filed an emergency request on Wednesday with the state's Second Judicial District Court to allow two women in Pojoaque, Jen Roper and Angelique Neuman, to legally marry immediately in Santa Fe County. The group said Jen Roper is not expected to live long.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 22, 2013, 02:52:48 pm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/22/john-bolton-s-surprising-support-for-gay-marriage.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29
8/22/13
John Bolton's Surprising Support For Gay Marriage

If he runs for President, Bolton would be the first Republican candidate for the Oval Office to support gay marriage.

John Bolton’s presidential campaign wouldn’t just be notable for his mustache; he'll be the first Republican candidate to openly support gay marriage.

The former ambassador to the United Nations, best known for his hawkish views on national security and hirsute upper lip, is now considering running for President in 2016. Bolton’s campaign will be predicated on his foreign policy background and the desire of the prominent neo-conservative to counter the growing isolationist wing of the GOP led by Rand Paul.

However, in an interview with Robert Costa of National Review, Bolton let slip a surprising bit of information; he’s for gay marriage. He said “On gay marriage, I support it, at both the state level and the federal level. Gay marriage is something I’ve thought about at length as I’ve looked at my future. I concluded, a couple years ago, that I think it should be permissible and treated the same at both levels.”

If Bolton runs, he would be the first Republican presidential candidate to support gay marriage. (In 2012, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman said he backed civil unions but still insisted that marriage should be between a man and a woman). Although social issues will not be the focus of Bolton’s campaign, his presence in debates and on the stump as an advocate for same-sex marriage will likely pull the debate in the GOP to the left. After all, Bolton can’t be characterized as a RINO. He has impeccable credentials in the conservative movement and was considered perhaps the most hawkish member of George W. Bush’s administration

Bolton, who has never before run for elected office, is unlikely to win the Republican nomination. But if he runs, it would likely be a big help to New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is considered the most socially moderate of any potential Republican candidate.  Bolton’s presence in the race wouldn’t necessarily endear Christie, who supports civil unions and recently signed a bill banning gay conversion therapy in New Jersey to social conservatives. But it would simply make the New Jersey governor seem comparatively less objectionable and make him less of a target in what is likely to be a boisterous and divisive primary campaign.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 23, 2013, 06:18:54 pm
Jesus could come back any minute now...

http://news.yahoo.com/2nd-nm-county-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses-195543003.html
2nd NM county issuing same-sex marriage licenses
8/23/13

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The county clerk in the New Mexico state capital and the heart of this state's gay rights movement began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples Friday, a court-ordered move that came just two days after a county clerk on the other end of the state decided on his own to recognize same-sex marriage.

The first couple to get a license in the state's third-largest county was Santa Fe County Commissioner Liz Stefanics and Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for Equality New Mexico, a gay rights group. Stefanics is a former Democratic state senator.

The couple walked into County Clerk Geraldine Salazar's office shortly after 1:30 p.m., and asked if they were still denying licenses to same-sex couples.

"Not today," Salazar said.

Second in line were the two men who filed the lawsuit that resulted in the court order directing the clerk to issue the licenses — Alexander Hanna and Yon Hudson.

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on August 24, 2013, 03:02:16 am
Quote
The first couple to get a license in the state's third-largest county was Santa Fe County Commissioner Liz Stefanics and Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for Equality New Mexico, a gay rights group. Stefanics is a former Democratic state senator.

Seems rather obvious that certain groups have taken control of the political process, regardless of law and citizens wishes, in order to use their political influence with people of the same mindset already in office.

It use to be illegal, now it's protocol!  ::)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 26, 2013, 09:47:53 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/08/26/gay-marriage-backers-head-to-court/?wprss=rss_homepage&clsrd
8/26/13
Gay-marriage backers head to court

After years of legislative and political victories, supporters of same-sex marriage are running out of states where friendly politicians can deliver on legislation legalizing unions between gay and lesbian couples. So marriage equality supporters are shifting tactics, focusing on courts of law rather than state legislatures.

In at least 15 states, same-sex couples have brought lawsuits aimed at getting their unions recognized. The cases fall into three broad categories: One set seeks to overturn state bans on same-sex marriage. Another seeks to force states to recognize marriages that occurred in other states. And a third deals with some of the less romantic aspects of marriage, like divorce.

“We all, as a movement, recognize that we got to where we are in terms of marriage equality by pursuing all avenues,” said Brian Moulton, the legal director at the Human Rights Campaign. “There are some more places — Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey — where we may be able to advance marriage through the state legislatures, but beyond that there are a lot of states that have constitutional amendments that are going to have to be rolled back by a popular vote” or by the courts.

In the months after a Supreme Court ruling striking down key elements of the Defense of Marriage act, the courts have been the venue of choice for backers of same-sex marriage.

On Friday, a court in Santa Fe County, N.M. ruled the county could issue same-sex marriage licenses. A judge in Albuquerque is expected to rule on a lawsuit brought by half a dozen same-sex couples that could legalize marriage throughout the state.

Across the border in Texas, the state Supreme Court said Friday it will schedule oral arguments for Nov. 5, on whether two gay couples that were married in other states can get divorced. One couple was granted a divorce in February 2010, in Austin; a court in Dallas granted another couple a divorce in 2009. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) filed motions to intervene in both cases, saying state law both prohibits same-sex marriage and prohibits any legal recognition of those marriages — which includes granting a divorce.

Earlier this month, three gay couples in Tennessee filed suit seeking to overturn their state’s same-sex marriage ban. In Cincinnati, a federal judge ruled that a dying man could be listed as married on his death certificate after he and his partner were married in Maryland last month. Jim Obergefell will be listed as the surviving spouse when his partner, who suffers from Lou Gehrig’s disease, passes away, the Associated Press reported.

A couple in Louisville filed suit last month to overturn Kentucky’s ban. A New Orleans couple filed a lawsuit seeking to force Louisiana to recognize their marriage after they traveled to Iowa, where same-sex unions are legal. Lawsuits are also pending in Arkansas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Virginia.

The most bizarre case involves a couple in Kentucky, where one partner is trying to use the state’s spousal privilege law to avoid testifying against the other, who is accused of murder. Prosecutors say the privilege law doesn’t apply to the couple, because they are not legally married; lawyers for the defendant and her partner say the amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and thus the two should be treated as married. The trial is scheduled to begin Friday.

The lawsuits highlight the different interpretations of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued earlier this year that struck down the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman. The decision, in United States v. Windsor, declared the prohibition on federal recognition of legally married couples unconstitutional.

Backers of same-sex marriage say the court’s opinion opens the door for challenges to existing bans. Supporters of the bans, though, say the Court left it up to the states to decide how to define marriage, and whether to ban unions between same-sex couples.

“The people of Texas have the same right as the people of Massachusetts or New York to have a voice in shaping their state’s destiny,” Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, said in a brief to the state court, according to the Austin American-Statesman. “And Texans have spoken clearly. Their voice commands that only the union of one man and one woman will be recognized as a marriage in Texas.”

The court cases reflect the political reality that same-sex marriage backers don’t have many avenues for legislative advancement. Of the 14 states where Democrats control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion, same-sex marriage is legal in nine, and another four permit civil unions (Socially conservative West Virginia is the lone Democratic state that has not allowed same-sex unions).

Beyond those blue states, same-sex marriage backers have had trouble winning over Republican supporters. Only one legislative chamber controlled by Republicans — the New York state Senate — has voted to pass a same-sex marriage bill. That leaves backers of marriage equality searching for new paths.

“Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the many ‘methodologies of social change,’ all legitimate parts of the American system,” said Evan Wolfson, president of the pro-gay rights Freedom to Marry. “We are employing all of them — litigation, legislation, ballot measures, public engagement and direct action.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 27, 2013, 11:29:59 am
http://news.yahoo.com/nm-county-told-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-220230788.html
NM county told to issue same-sex marriage licenses
8/26/13

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — More than 100 people were lined up in Albuquerque Tuesday morning as the clerk in New Mexico's most populous county began issuing marriages licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The clerk opened her office to the crowd at 8 a.m., and a mass wedding was planned at noon in Albuquerque's Civic Plaza.

Patricia Catlett, a 61-year-old graphic designer from Albuquerque, and her partner of 25 years, Karen Schmiege, a 69-year-old retired librarian, were the first to get their license in Bernalillo County.

"I am so excited I can't stand it," Schmiege said as they were signing their papers.

As they walked out of the booth where they received their license, the crowd applauded and yelled in celebration. The couple raised their hand, and the crowd responded by putting their fists in the air.

"I want her to take me to Costa Rica," said Schmiege. "She promised."

The Bernalillo County Clerk joined clerks from the state's other two population centers in recognizing same-sex unions after a judge Monday declared gay marriage legal.

State District Judge Alan Malott on Monday ruled New Mexico's constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
.

The decision comes on the heels of an order last week from a judge in Santa Fe that directed the county clerk there to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Two days earlier, the clerk in the southern New Mexico county of Dona Ana decided to recognize same-sex couples.

But Malott's ruling was seen as more sweeping than the temporary Santa Fe order because he directly declared that gay marriage was legal.

Laura Schauer Ives, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, called it "monumental" and said the group didn't expect such a broad decision by Malott. The judge had been asked only to order that the state recognize, on her death certificate, a dying woman's marriage Friday in Santa Fe to her longtime partner.

But after a short hearing in which neither the counties nor the state objected to the request, Malott also ruled on the broader lawsuit by that couple and five others seeking marriage licenses
.

However, it's uncertain whether clerks in the state's 30 other counties, who were not defendants in the lawsuit, will use the judge's ruling as a signal that they can issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Assistant Attorney General Scott Fuqua said the decision wasn't binding on clerks outside Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties.

Malott's order came during a hearing seeking an order for the state to recognize the marriage of Jen Roper, who has cancer, to Angelique Neuman.

The couple wed at a Santa Fe hospital after a state district judge in a separate case ordered the Santa Fe County clerk to issue same-sex licenses.

The couple last week joined the lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of five other lesbian couples.

One of those couples, Tanya Struble and Therese Councilor of Jemez Springs, said they plan to get their marriage license first thing Tuesday. But they were unsure whether they would be married immediately or wait for a ceremony that can be attended by family and friends.

Christine Butler of Albuquerque, who opposes gay marriage and attended the hearing, said the judge's ruling violates her rights.

"I don't want to bring my children or go to places and see same-sex couples showing a lot of affection. ... That's against God's law," Butler said.

A group of Republican legislators is planning to file a lawsuit to stop clerks from issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

One of those lawmakers, Sen. William Sharer of Farmington, said it is up to the state's Legislature, with the consent of the governor, to make laws — not its county clerks or district judges.

"It is inexplicable how a district court just today discovered a new definition of marriage in our laws, when our marriage law has not been changed in over a century," Sharer said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 27, 2013, 02:00:46 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/couples-challenge-nebraska-ban-gay-adoptive-foster-parents-180652896.html
8/27/13
Couples challenge Nebraska ban on gay adoptive and foster parents

Reuters) - Gay and lesbian couples in Nebraska should be allowed to serve as foster or adoptive parents to children who are in state custody, according to a state court lawsuit filed on Tuesday.

A lesbian couple and two gay couples filed the lawsuit in a Lincoln district court arguing the state policy created in 1995 banning them from becoming foster or adoptive parents to children under care of Nebraska is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit comes two months after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred same-sex couples from federal marriage benefits.

The ruling has led to a wave of legal challenges in federal and state courts to laws that restrict the rights of gays and lesbians.

Nebraska's policy prohibits the state's department of health and human services from issuing foster-home licenses to or placing children with people who identify themselves as homosexuals or to people who are unrelated, unmarried adults living together.

According to Leslie Cooper, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the couples in Nebraska, the state, through the screening process, has made multiple exceptions for unrelated, unmarried adults who live together, but not for gay and lesbian couples.

"There should be individual screenings subjected to the same standards for everybody that applies," she said
.

**Allowing couples to cohabitate has been one of the doors that has opened to this agenda.

The lawsuit contends the policy is unconstitutional because it treat gays and lesbians differently than heterosexuals, violates their personal liberties and subjects them to prejudice based on sexual orientation.

Given Nebraska's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, the provision that excludes unrelated, unmarried adults from being adoptive and foster-care parents inherently applies to gay and lesbian couples, Cooper noted.

A lesbian couple in Michigan is challenging that state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and the state law that prevents them from jointly adopting each other's children.

State courts in Nebraska as well as Kentucky, North Carolina and Ohio have ruled that so-called second-parent adoptions are not available under current law. Second-parent adoption is the adoption of a child by a second parent in the home who is not married to the child's legal parent.

Nebraska is joined by Utah and Mississippi as states having the most restrictive adoption and foster-care policies, according to Cooper.

Utah, where gay marriage is not allowed, bans all unmarried individuals in cohabiting relationships from being adoptive or foster-care parents, while Mississippi only bans same-gender couples from those roles, she said.

(Reporting by Brendan O'Brien; Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Prudence Crowther)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 28, 2013, 06:16:54 pm
Gay marriage now legal in 5 New Mexico counties
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/08/28/gay-marriage-legal-in-new-mexico-sort-of/?wprss=rss_national&clsrd
8/28/13

County clerks in New Mexico will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after a state judge ruled Monday that the state’s marriage law, which uses gender-neutral terms to define domestic relationships, doesn’t specifically prohibit gay marriage.

State District Judge Alan Malott on Monday ordered Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver and Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar to begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples immediately. The ruling echoed another district judge’s ruling last week that ordered Santa Fe County to begin issuing licenses.

Six same-sex couples that had been denied marriage licenses in the two counties had filed a lawsuit challenging those decisions.

In anticipation of the decision, both county clerks had already begun printing gender-neutral marriage licenses. Last week, the county clerk in Dona Ana County, in southern New Mexico, began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On Tuesday, clerks in Valencia County and San Miguel County said they, too, would begin issuing licenses.

Together, the five counties are home to more than 1.1 million of New Mexico’s 2.08 million residents.

But whether the rulings means same-sex marriage is legal throughout New Mexico is unclear. Attorney General Gary King (D) has said he will not appeal the rulings, and both Oliver and Salazar have said their offices won’t appeal.

Clerks in the 28 other counties can choose to follow existing case law and issue their own same-sex marriage licenses, or they could wait to issue licenses until they are compelled by a court order to do so, according to Cathryn Oakley, an attorney for the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-gay rights group in Washington.

New Mexico is the 15th jurisdiction in which same-sex marriage has been legalized. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia already allow same-sex marriage.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 29, 2013, 05:15:25 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/irs-issues-tax-rules-married-gay-couples-181842237--finance.html
IRS issues tax rules for married gay couples
8/29/13

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government on Thursday said that all legally married gay couples will be able to file joint federal tax returns even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages.

The decision came in rules issued by the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service designed to implement the tax aspects of the Supreme Court's decision in June that invalidated a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

"Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide," Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in a statement.

"This ruling assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change," Lew said.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, praised the government's action.

"With today's ruling, committed and loving gay and lesbian married couples will now be treated equally under our nation's federal tax laws, regardless of what state they call home," Griffin said in a statement.

The Treasury said that with the new rules, same-sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes including income and gift and estate taxes.

The rules will cover all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor including the taxpayer's filing status, personal and dependent exemptions and standard deductions.

The new rules will cover any same-sex marriage legally entered into in any state where such a marriage is recognized. It will also cover such marriages recognized by U.S. territories, foreign nations and the District of Columbia.

The government said that the statute of limitations for filing a refund claim was generally three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever was later. As a result, the government said that refund claims can still be filed for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012.

The new IRS and Treasury regulations follow rules changes and guidance that have already been issued by other federal agencies including the office of Personnel Management and the departments of Defense and Health and Human Services.

The Supreme Court ruling came in a case filed by Edie Windsor, a resident of New York, who was forced to pay federal estate taxes after the death of Thea Spyer, her lesbian spouse.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 29, 2013, 06:07:15 pm
^^ Ultimately, it's all about the love of money, which is how Caesar plays ball too...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/todays-irs-decision-gay-marriage-201553462.html
What Today's IRS Decision On Gay Marriage Means For The Federal Budget
8/29/13

Today, the IRS and the Treasury Department announced that they will treat any same-sex couple married by any state as married, even if they currently live in a state that doesn't have gay marriage.
I know what you're thinking: How will this affect the federal budget?

Over the long term, this decision will increase federal tax receipts by a little. But this year, the federal government may actually lose a little revenue.

Some married couples face a "marriage penalty," meaning they owe more taxes than if they were single, while others get a "marriage bonus." But the penalty effect is more important. Back in 2004, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that gay marriage would mean about $700 million a year in added tax revenues. In practice, because of tax policy changes since 2004, the added revenues would likely be somewhat less.

But one key component of today's announcement is that the IRS will accept amended tax returns from gay couples going back as far as 2010. If you filed previous years' taxes as single because the IRS didn't recognize your marriage, you can go back and change old tax returns to say you're married—but only if you want to.

Gay couples will presumably only take this option if doing so gets them a tax refund. Typically, that would happen for one of two reasons. If the spouses had highly unequal incomes, it's likely they missed out on a marriage bonus, because graduated tax brackets kick in at higher levels for couples than singles. Or, if one spouse put the other on his or her employer-provided health plan in previous years, amending old returns will allow the couple to deduct the cost of that spousal health benefit from tax.

Since only couples getting refund checks will be likely to amend, the IRS decision is likely to cause a short-run revenue loss. But it will be made up in the future, when same-sex married couples have to file their taxes as married whether they want to or not.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 30, 2013, 09:34:28 am
^^ Here's more on this...this is really going to open a whole new can of worms b/c...

1) It's going to cause confusion with Accountants b/c the software systems are set up with the federal and all of the respective state tax forms properly(with adjustments for the state's respective tax and sales brackets). However, let's say a gay married couple from New York moves to Oklahoma(where they ban SSMs) - while for federal purposes they can file Married Filing Jointly, then can NOT do so for state purposes. So their respective accountants have to go back to their respective tax return softwares to make adjustments for each(as both will have to file Single), which is going to be more time consuming. And the way these tax software programs are set up, it's not exactly easy to do MFJ for federal, and then subsequently do Single for both AND SEPARATE their RESPECTIVE incomes et al on each of their state returns.

And it's also going to create headaches for the IRS et al b/c for example, for states that require state income taxes(Texas and Florida do not), you can write off your state income taxes on your Sch A of your 1040. So b/c SSM couples can file MFJ, how can they BOTH write off their state income taxes(which they paid separately) on their 1040 TOGETHER? You see the confusion? And how can these respective tax softwares reconcile them to the 1040? Ultimately, IRS oversight over people's taxes is going to be much more of a headache.

2) Considering the facts in #1, this will be another step toward pushing SSM further nationwide as more people(accountants, business people, government officials, etc), other than the pro-gay lobby, will be complaining how things need to be simplified more. And SSM couples will be complaining too b/c of all of the high Accountant fees they're paying(with all of the adjustments et al Accountants have to work around, more time = more hours billing = higher fees).

So ultimately, for the time being - both lawyers and accountants are going to be profiting quite a bit off of this(as lawyers are putting more time with gay DIVORCE couples). Where over the long haul, this is going to push SSM legalizing nationwide at a faster pace.

No surprise here, as we're seeing the Freemasonic Order Ob Chou(sp) of Problem/Reaction/Solution model being played out here.

http://news.yahoo.com/irs-just-handed-gay-marriage-huge-win-070500560.html
How the IRS just handed gay marriage a huge win
8/30/13

On Thursday, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that, for tax purposes, same-sex couples legally married in any state are married, so far as the federal government is concerned, no matter where they live.

This may seem like tax policy minutia. It isn't.

It's "a big first step to general federal recognition of same-sex marriages," says Dylan Matthews at The Washington Post. After the Supreme Court neutered the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June, allowing federal recognition of gay marriage, the IRS could very easily have decided that married gay couples file their taxes on a "place of residence" basis — if their state recognizes same-sex marriage, they can file as a married couple; if not, they file individual returns.

Instead, the IRS opted for a "place of celebration" rule, meaning that once they are married in one of the 13 states that recognize same-sex marriage (14, including Washington D.C.), the IRS considers them married, period. And the ruling is retroactive, meaning married gay couples can re-file their taxes back to 2010, but don't have to if it isn't advantageous to do so. (Couples with legally sanctioned civil unions still have to file as individuals.)

This wasn't the obvious thing for the IRS to decide. The DOMA decision "invalidated a federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and general reaction at the time suggested that the definition of marriage would thus revert to state law," says Joseph Henchman at the Tax Foundation. That is, the IRS would use the "state of residence" standard.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that Section 2 of DOMA, which permits states to refuse to recognize marriages that are at odds with their state's public policy, was not struck down.... The administration asserts that "state of celebration" is in line with private industry practice, which provides benefits to any employee that can demonstrate they are married, regardless of where they live. [Tax Foundation]

"Many may cheer the result, which resolves federal tax ambiguity for same-sex couples in the 13 states and the District of Columbia that recognize their marriage," says Henchman, but it will create a royal headache for the 24 states that bar gay marriage but require taxpayers to reference their federal returns when filing their state tax returns.

The troubles the IRS ruling hoists on states with no same-sex marriage isn't lost on gay-marriage proponents. Thanks to the tax agency, says Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed, "states that ban same-sex couples from marrying will nonetheless have to deal directly with married same-sex couples living in their states come tax time — putting pressure on executive officials, lawmakers, and courts to address the issue, whether they want to or not."

Several gay-marriage advocates tell Geidner that the IRS decision will not only force non-gay-marriage states to figure out a way to align their tax policies with federal returns, it will also apply new public pressure on civil-union states to move toward recognizing same-sex marriage. Barring that, there will inevitably be more litigation.

"I expect the Supreme Court is going to need to revisit these issues in the next two to four years," Jon Davidson at Lambda Legal tells BuzzFeed, and Thursday's decision "will be an additional force moving things in the right direction."

If this still seems mostly like quibbling over tax policy, consider the reaction of gay-marriage opponents.

"The re-election of President Obama meant that the gay agenda would be imposed top-down by executive authority," and here we are, says Robert Stacy McCain at The Other McCain. We have now "advanced to the point that, with the de facto federal imposition of gay marriage (despite constitutional amendments to the contrary in more than 30 states) we are now a judicial hop, skip, and jump from a Supreme Court decision mandating compulsory sodomy."

Ryan T. Anderson makes a similar case, albeit with less hyperbole, at The Heritage Foundation's Foundry blog:

Just as families are getting ready to head out the door for a long holiday weekend, the Obama Administration has rolled out new policies that disregard states' authority over marriage and redefine marriage for a variety of federal purposes.... Given the Supreme Court's ruling on Section 3 of DOMA, the federal government should look to each state's definition of marriage as governing for federal law. This respects both federalism and democratic self-government. A bad Supreme Court ruling should not allow federal bureaucrats to redefine marriage across America for their agency. [The Foundry]

Another way of looking at this: The IRS's gay-marriage policy seems "the most logical way for the federal government to deal with this issue in light of the Supreme Court's decision," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. But it isn't a total win for married gay couples. In states with no gay marriage, "same-sex couples will be required to prepare two different sets of federal returns, one for married couples, and one for each of them as single persons for the purposes of preparing the state return." That seems like "yet another inequity experienced by gay and lesbian couples."

**And this is where all of the complications and confusion will come up with accountants - yes, these tax softwares are very, very good(at least the ones I worked with), but nonetheless the makers of these tax softwares, IMHO, are going to have a hard time coming up with a program where if it is a SSM couple filing a federal return, then 2 Single state returns will produce, only to have to reconcile some things from BOTH of the respective individual state returns like state taxes paid back to the 1040 Sch A as ONE, right after they have to separate certain items to the state income tax returns(both of their respective incomes). Again, very complicated even on their part, and accountants are going to have to spend more time figuring it out themselves. And even more complicating for the IRS people as they have to spend more time checking through all this.

The Week's Carmel Lobello has pointed out all the financial benefits gay couples might reap from DOMA's downfall. But because "same-sex couples are likelier to have similar incomes than opposite-sex couples," says The Washington Post's Dylan Matthews, "the tax bill for many couples will grow going forward." Still, this is a big win for gay marriage, and another sign that the Obama administration wants to offer "benefits to as expansive a set of same-sex married couples as possible." Mostly.

It's still not all federal government roses for these couples. Social Security uses a place of residence rule, and has issued instructions to personnel to deny claims for spousal benefits from same-sex couples living in states where such marriages are not recognized. [Washington Post]


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on August 30, 2013, 01:03:01 pm
Quote
**And this is where all of the complications and confusion will come up with accountants - yes, these tax softwares are very, very good(at least the ones I worked with), but nonetheless the makers of these tax softwares, IMHO, are going to have a hard time coming up with a program where if it is a SSM couple filing a federal return, then 2 Single state returns will produce, only to have to reconcile some things from BOTH of the respective individual state returns like state taxes paid back to the 1040 Sch A as ONE, right after they have to separate certain items to the state income tax returns(both of their respective incomes). Again, very complicated even on their part, and accountants are going to have to spend more time figuring it out themselves. And even more complicating for the IRS people as they have to spend more time checking through all this.

That's some nice professional insight to the filing nightmare this is getting to be.

But then what happens when a federal log jam is created? Out comes the solution, but in this respect, taxes are a tangled web of interconnecting ties that are dependent on various conditions that may or may not have to be met by the filer.

They at least catch some of a break in that state and federal returns are separate, though each has some ties to the other. But, there is still a TON of tax implications that must be addressed, and the relating rules and software, etc that must be changed.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 30, 2013, 05:28:59 pm
Normally wouldn't post these political-oriented articles, but nonetheless every now and then you notice some New Age buzzwords in these "movements", as well as Churchianity playing the role of "superhero"...

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-push-looking-unions-immigrants-201644921.html
8/30/13
Gay marriage push looking to unions, immigrants

CHICAGO (AP) — After their efforts to legalize gay marriage fizzled in Illinois this year, advocates gave their campaign a serious makeover: They called on unions, focused longer-term and recalibrated their message by using personal stories instead of civil rights comparisons.

It's a formula picked up from their fellow activists who made Chicago an influential player in the push for immigrant rights.

Proponents will try again this fall to push gay marriage legislation through the Illinois Legislature, where they fell a few votes short in a Democrat-dominated state that's been surprisingly resistant. But this time, they're focusing less on lobbying lawmakers and more on priming the environment to make it easier for skittish legislators to cast favorable votes — taking cues from a movement that brought nearly 500,000 protesters to Chicago streets a few years ago and helped advance "Dream Act" goals this year.

"The immigration advocates, they really know how to get it done," said Jim Bennett, a director for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that's part of the Illinois Unites for Marriage campaign. "We have a lot to learn from them."

While social justice movements often borrow tactics from one another, experts agree the overlap in Illinois stands out among the 13 states that have embraced gay marriage — particularly in the union connections and emphasizing the development of young, long-term leaders.

At the heart of the renewed push is John Kohlhepp, a lobbyist for Illinois' biggest state employee union. He was hired to lead a coalition that since June has grown from three organizations to roughly 50, including other unions, and raised roughly one-quarter of the campaign's $2 million.

On the campaign trail, Kohlhepp's energy ripples out to the nearly 20 field organizers who have been distributing leaflets at events this summer, including the State Fair and Chicago's Bud Billiken Parade, the largest African-American parade nationwide. Kohlhepp's cellphone rings constantly with contacts through the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, from which he has taken a leave. A seasoned lobbyist, he marks time by counting the days to Oct. 22, when legislators return to Springfield.

His involvement shows the strongest link yet between unions and the gay marriage campaign, according to Mary Bernstein, a University of Connecticut sociology professor who tracks social movements. That relationship resonates in labor-friendly Illinois, where immigrant-rights activists and unions made early links that are now hard to separate.

Unions, for example, helped Illinois become the first state to challenge the federal e-Verify immigrant worker identification system, and workers' groups have pushed for fair immigrant wages.

Bernstein said the Illinois collaborations appear to be an "innovation."

Nationally, the two movements have picked up ideas from one another before. Students without legal immigration status have "come out" in public ceremonies — Chicago was among the first to hold such events — and some immigrant activists say they look up to the late Harvey Milk, California's first openly gay elected politician and a renowned organizer.

The push for gay marriage in Illinois started in earnest after lawmakers approved civil unions in 2011. But after it passed the Senate, House sponsors ultimately declined to call a vote on the same-sex marriage bill before legislators adjourned in May.

Proponents believed they were just a few votes shy, and intense lobbying efforts to find support for the bill were focused on moderate Republicans and black Democrats.

But since then, the American Civil Liberties Union has hired former state Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady, a gay-marriage supporter, to help lobby Republicans. And organizers hope to capitalize on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that invalidated parts of the Defense of Marriage Act and polls showing more public support.

"There's really a different story to tell to my colleagues," said Rep. Greg Harris, the main House sponsor.

However, the campaign still faces significant obstacles: Illinois conservatives and some religious leaders are equally strong in their opposition.

Bishop Lance Davis, of New Zion Covenant Church in the Chicago suburb of Dolton, said his coalition of black churches intends to continue fighting same-sex marriage legislation out of a belief that marriage is between man and a woman. Several of the mega churches the coalition represents are key in voter registration drives and host politicians before Election Day.

Davis said he believes the Supreme Court's decision, along with activists trying to bring same-sex marriage, is "a redefinition of the institution of marriage."

But other churches have supported the cause, and activists hired an openly gay minister to reach out to more congregations

When the push for gay marriage began in Illinois, advocates likened it to the historic struggle for civil rights. That resonated with young people but irked others, particularly blacks. Davis was one of the most vocal critics.

This time around, the advocates are putting their focus on family and commitment issues. They are encouraging same-sex couples to relay personal experiences, which was also part of the successful gay-marriage campaigns in Connecticut and Minnesota this year.

"The movement has learned what kind of messaging has resonance for people," Bernstein said. "The civil rights discourse has been divisive for a long time ... Everyone understands love and commitment."

That includes taking another cue from the immigrant rights movement. In 2006, when Congress considered a bill that would have made being an illegal immigrant a felony, massive crowds took to the Chicago's streets to protest. Activists told their personal stories of hardship and argued that deportations pull apart families.

"What this will take (to win the gay marriage battle) is folks telling their stories," said Keron Blair, who directs campaign field organizers.

Ultimately, organizers say, the overarching mission is to inspire leaders who will push for future gay rights issues — just as a new crop of young activists with roots in Chicago are doing both at home and in Washington D.C.

"If we left behind leaders like that, I'd be ecstatic," said Kohlhepp, the union lobbyist now heading the same-sex marriage coalition. He said accomplishing that goal would be "an imprint of the campaign."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 30, 2013, 05:33:19 pm
Bishop Lance Davis, of New Zion Covenant Church in the Chicago suburb of Dolton, said his coalition of black churches intends to continue fighting same-sex marriage legislation out of a belief that marriage is between man and a woman. Several of the mega churches the coalition represents are key in voter registration drives and host politicians before Election Day.


Hebrews 3:4  For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

Heb 3:12  Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
Heb 3:13  But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 31, 2013, 10:59:21 am
http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/justice-ginsburg-to-officiate-at-same-sex-wedding
Justice Ginsburg to officiate at same-sex wedding
8/30/13

The 80-year-old Supreme Court justice will officiate a private wedding ceremony Saturday at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.


WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is performing a same-sex wedding this weekend in what is believed to be a first for a member of the nation's highest court.

Ginsburg is officiating at the marriage of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist, on Saturday. Kaiser says he asked Ginsburg to officiate because she is a longtime friend.

The private ceremony is taking place at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a memorial to President John F. Kennedy. The 80-year-old Ginsburg, an opera lover, is a frequent guest at the center.

Justices generally avoid taking stands on political issues. The wedding, though, comes after the court's landmark ruling in June to expand federal recognition of same-sex marriages, striking down part of an anti-gay marriage law.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on August 31, 2013, 11:08:52 am
Gay Spouses in All States Now Married Under U.S. Tax Law

Gay spouses in all U.S. states will be treated as married under federal tax law even if local authorities don’t recognize their marriages, in what gay-rights advocates are calling a victory.  

The decision by the Treasury Department today implements the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to overturn part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had forbidden the Internal Revenue Service from letting married homosexual couples file joint tax returns.

The U.S. government’s decision is a win for same-sex couples who were married in one of the 13 states, the District of Columbia or foreign countries that recognize such relationships and now live in one of the 37 states that don’t.

“This is a very positive development,” said Derek Dorn, a partner at Davis & Harman LLP in Washington and outside counsel to the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for lesbian and gay Americans. “Additional details need to be worked out in more nuanced areas of the tax law.”

More than 200 provisions in the tax code and federal regulations reference marriage, affecting a range of financial matters such as retirement accounts and health benefits, according to the IRS. Couples with unequal incomes will benefit from the marriage bonuses in the tax code, while those with relatively equal incomes will have to pay more.

The ruling also will make it easier for spouses to inherit money tax-free.

Amending Returns

There are more than 130,000 married, same-sex couples in the U.S., according to estimates from the 2010 Census. For tax year 2013, they must use the married filing jointly or married filing separately status. They have the option to amend returns filed as long as three years ago and can seek refunds; they aren’t required to refile returns if they would pay more.

For example, before the court’s ruling, same-sex spouses who received benefits from one of their employers had to consider the benefits’ value as taxable income for the spouse who doesn’t work for that employer. On an amended return, they could remove that from income and recalculate their tax liability.

The decision may cause complications for states that don’t recognize same-sex marriages and piggyback their tax rules on the federal system.

“There are going to be a lot of state tax attorneys working overtime next week,” said Verenda Smith, deputy director at the Federation of Tax Administrators. “This is what everyone has been waiting for. Now states can release their own guidance.”

State Laws

Same-sex married couples’ finances were complicated by DOMA before the court decision. They were able to file jointly in states that recognized gay marriages while having to file individual federal tax returns because the U.S. government treated them as single.

Now couples may find the reverse situation in states that don’t recognize their marriages, depending on whether they change their laws now that the IRS has issued its guidance, said Shari Levitan, chairwoman of the New England private wealth services group at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston.

“I have clients who were married in Massachusetts and moved to Arizona,” Levitan said. “They now know they can file their joint return for federal purposes, but they are going to have to unwind all that data according to Arizona’s rules for state tax purposes.”

Estate Taxes

The disconnect may lead to a variety of new questions for gay married couples such as the effect on trusts for the purposes of state estate taxes and the treatment of gains on second homes in some states, Levitan said.

In Arizona, which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, the state-tax filing process won’t change, Sean Laux, a spokesman for the Arizona Department of Revenue, said earlier this month. Same-sex couples won’t be allowed to file returns as a married couple, Laux said.

The Treasury Department’s statement doesn’t apply to recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships that aren’t marriages.

“Today’s ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax-filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide,” Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said in a statement today. “This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.”

The IRS also released regulations explaining more detailed rules on amending past returns and is planning further guidance to address special circumstances that apply in a limited number of cases.

Filing Extensions

Same-sex couples had been waiting since June for guidance from the IRS before making decisions on amending past years’ returns or for tax filings due Oct. 15. Some same-sex married couples filed for extensions on their 2012 returns in anticipation of the Supreme Court decision.

Taxpayers who haven’t filed their 2012 taxes can choose to file as two single people or a married couple before Sept. 16. After that, they must file as married, the IRS said.

The DOMA case hinged on the issue of federal estate taxes. It involved New York resident Edie Windsor, who sued the federal government over a $363,000 estate-tax bill imposed after her spouse died.

Also today, benefits began to expand for married gay couples enrolled in Medicare, the U.S. health program for the elderly.

Under current policy, married people enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans whose spouses live in nursing homes have the right to receive treatment at the same home when they leave a hospital and need follow-up care. Until today, that benefit wasn’t explicitly available to gay married couples.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/gay-spouses-in-all-states-can-file-joint-taxes.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 31, 2013, 11:23:53 am
^^ Like I said here, I've been in the Accounting profession - what they did here is going to cause some MAJOR headaches and confusion among accountants, IRS officials, business/corporate people, government people, etc, etc. For example, while SSM couples who live in Oklahoma or Arkansas can file MFJ on their federal returns, they will have to file Single on their state returns. The confusion and headaches will come about when in these respective tax softwares accountants use, it's going to have to create 2 separate Single state returns after their federal info is filled out(meaning separate their incomes and other deductions they can take - I haven't filled out a state return since my days in Louisiana b/c Texas doesn't pay state taxes so not sure all the deductions they can take, but nonetheless it's not like both can take the same amount of deductions on their state returns as one belongs to one and the other belongs to another, see what this particular confusion is? And then when their state taxes are calculated, they have to be reconciled back to their 1040 Sch A deductions).

To sum it up in a nutshell - while these tax softwares are very good, even they won't be able to reprogram everything with all of these complications, and these respective accountants have to do all the grudge work themselves. And the IRS officials will have to put much more time in proofreading and checking everything as some of these SSM couples have different federal and state returns.

Ultimately, EVERYONE will be complaining. Accountants b/c they're spending much more time on this grudge work, and less time on more of their wealthy clients that have rich Partnership businesses. IRS and government officials for the reason mentioned above. SSM couples for the reason being their accountant fee bills are higher than anticipated. Even citizens may complain b/c of all the extra time proofreading and checking everyone's returns at the IRS, they may get their tax refunds later than usual.

Problem. Reaction. Solution. Next thing we know, everyone will have no qualms when SSM gets officially legalized nationwide.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the love of money...


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on August 31, 2013, 01:55:35 pm
Now, stop and think just how many people this will actually affect?

The general admitted percent of the population that is gay is about 8-12%, maybe as low as 5%. So this whole deal is over just basically 10% of the population, but the majority of them, marriage isn't an issue, so the figure of those having to file is much lower than that.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 01, 2013, 12:18:24 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/landmark-gay-marriage-hearing-approaches-pa-160945550.html
Landmark gay marriage hearing approaches in Pa.
9/1/13

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — For two months, an elected court clerk in the Philadelphia suburbs has been giving something to same-sex couples they have not been able to get anywhere else: a Pennsylvania marriage license.

Now a court has to decide whether the clerk has singlehandedly added Pennsylvania to the growing list of states that formally sanction same-sex marriages or whether he has been acting illegally and must be stopped.

Wednesday's hearing in Harrisburg pits Gov. Tom Corbett's Health Department against D. Bruce Hanes, Montgomery County's register of wills, who issues marriage licenses as part of his duties as clerk of the county orphan's court.

Hanes began giving marriage licenses to gay couples in late July, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Pennsylvania is the only Northeastern state that has neither gay marriage nor civil unions, but the legality of the more than 150 such licenses Hanes has handed out remains an open question.

David Cohen, an attorney representing 32 couples who received licenses from Hanes, says it's too early to speculate on the legal status of those marriages.

"That's certainly unknown because it would depend on the scope of the decision," Cohen said. But he added that there's plenty of legal precedent for courts to look at the core issue of how a local official decides whether an action is constitutional.

The case is one of several nationwide that have put county clerks in a legal spotlight of late and harkens back to initial efforts in California nearly a decade ago to push for same-sex marriage.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004, citing the state constitution's equal protection clause. His order came months after Massachusetts' Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state.

However, California's high court stopped the practice a month later after about 4,000 same-sex licenses had been given out. The court reversed itself in 2008, legalizing gay marriage, but voters the following year approved Proposition 8, which banned the unions.

In the latest twist, the U.S. Supreme Court this year let stand a lower-court ruling that struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. And the California Supreme Court followed suit in August, refusing to block gay marriages.

In New Mexico in the past week or so, hundreds of same-sex marriage licenses were issued after a county clerk along the U.S.-Mexico border concluded that state law didn't prevent him from issuing licenses. So far, clerks in six counties have begun issuing licenses, and a seventh has been ordered to do the same.

In the Pennsylvania case, "there's a great deal at stake," said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which advocates for conservative social policies. "The biggest issue is whether or not our public officials, whether local or statewide, will obey the law and follow the oath that they took when sworn into office."

Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania, which advocates on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said Hanes' decision and the resulting case have brought attention to and encouraged discussion about ways such people are treated differently.

If Hanes wins in court, Martin said, "the ramifications would be pretty remarkable. I think Pennsylvania legislators would have to look long and hard about what's out there. It would be pretty interesting, at least."

Commonwealth Court has told the lawyers to address whether the judges have jurisdiction given Hanes' status as a judicial officer; whether handing out marriage licenses amounts to a judicial act; and whether the constitutionality of the state marriage law is a defense in the case.

Attorney General Kathleen Kane, a Democrat, delegated defense of the marriage law in a federal lawsuit to Corbett, a Republican. Kane's position has been that the law, which limits marriage to between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

The court also directed the lawyers to address whether the Health Department has standing to file the case and, if not, the implications of Kane's position.

Corbett's lawyers have warned that Hanes' actions, if allowed to stand, will produce chaos and have said his actions may amount to a crime.

"This case is about one thing: whether a local official may willfully disregard a statute on the basis of his personal legal opinion that the statute is unconstitutional," Corbett's lawyers wrote in a filing last week.

A spokesman for Corbett's Office of General Counsel, Nils Frederiksen, said local officials like Hanes don't have the authority to disregard state law based on their personal legal opinion.

"Decisions about the constitutionality of a state law are in the hands of a court," Frederiksen said.

Hanes' legal team has said the Health Department needs to be more specific about whatever harm it thinks could occur and has argued there is a conflict between the state's marriage law and Hanes' oath to uphold the national and state constitutions.

The state's marriage law, they wrote this month, "affects a fundamental human right, and precludes an entire class of individuals from enjoyment of that right."

Bryn Mawr residents Joanne Glusman and Joan Bennett are one of the couples who obtained a license from Hanes. The native Pennsylvanians have been together for 18 years.

"We went into it not really knowing what it would mean for us legally," Glusman said, but the hope was they'd get the same rights their married siblings have.

Cohen wouldn't speculate on whether his clients will take further legal action if the ruling goes against Hanes. But Glusman said waiting on the courts is stressful.

"It causes a lot of unease," Glusman said, adding that the couple is "disheartened and actually fearful" over what may happen if the Corbett administration prevails in the case.

"We were both born and bred here. We don't want to move," Glusman said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 02, 2013, 04:03:30 pm
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Gay-couple-sues-over-SC-same-sex-marriage-ban-222086251.html
9/2/13
Gay couple sues over SC same-sex marriage ban

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- A legally married gay couple living in South Carolina is suing to have the state's ban on gay marriage overturned. 

 Highway Patrol Trooper Katherine Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal court. They are suing Gov. Nikki Haley and state Attorney General Alan Wilson. 

 Bradacs and Goodwin were married in Washington, D.C., in April 2012. They say a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision shows that states can't outlaw same sex marriages because they do not approve of them morally. 

 South Carolina passed a law banning same-sex marriage in 1996, with voters passing a similar constitutional amendment in 2006 with 78 percent of the vote. 

 Spokesmen for Haley and Wilson said Monday they had not seen the lawsuit, first reported by The State (http://bit.ly/15MXNeG).


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 04, 2013, 04:18:09 pm
7th New Mexico county plans to allow gay marriage

By BARRY MASSEY / Associated Press / September 3, 2013
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2013/09/03/new-mexico-county-plans-allow-gay-marriage/sBm3yPhMc4HV9rWCbgTrYP/story.html


Judge sides with Ohio gay couple on death form

9/4/13
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-sides-ohio-gay-couple-death-form-062021503.html;_ylt=A2KJNF.FoidSYwQApSvQtDMD


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 04, 2013, 04:37:25 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-vows-quick-pa-same-sex-marriage-case-155818868.html
Judge vows quick Pa. same-sex marriage case ruling
9/4/13

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A judge promised to rule as quickly as possible after hearing arguments Wednesday about whether a suburban Philadelphia court clerk should be forced to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini said a central issue is "how power is allocated in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania."

"What's before us today is generally, 'Who decides?'" Pellegrini told the full courtroom in Harrisburg at the start of oral arguments.

Pennsylvania is the only northeastern state that does not allow gay marriage or civil unions. A 1996 state law says a marriage must be between a man and a woman, and it says same-sex marriages performed elsewhere cannot be recognized in Pennsylvania.

D. Bruce Hanes, the elected register of wills in Montgomery County, defied the ban in late July by issuing licenses to same-sex couples, as part of his duties as the orphan's court clerk. His action followed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to throw out part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and a statement by state Attorney General Kathleen Kane that the same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional.

The state Health Department, which is seeking a court order to stop Hanes, said it must ensure that marriage registrations are "uniformly and thoroughly enforced throughout the state." It said his actions have interfered with the proper performance of its powers, duties and responsibilities.

"He is issuing marriage licenses that the law clearly does not allow," said Greg Dunlap, representing the Health Department. "The Department of Health has an interest in the integrity of the record keeping system."

By the close of business Tuesday, Hanes had issued 164 licenses.

Pellegrini said he was not weighing the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban. But questions about its constitutionality arose repeatedly, and Pellegrini said he was concerned about the potential effect of his ruling on various levels of government.

The lawyers discussed how a sheriff might decide it was unconstitutional to deny gun permits to felons, or a zoning officer might think setback property line rules are an unconstitutional taking of private property.

"There's a lot of constitutional officers in this commonwealth," Pellegrini said.

The judge has to determine if the Health Department has legal standing to pursue what's known as a mandamus action to force a government official to follow the law. He also has to decide if Hanes qualifies as a judicial officer; if he does, the state Supreme Court may have exclusive jurisdiction.

Pellegrini allowed a lawyer for some of the people who have received licenses to participate in the argument. Afterward, one couple said they were not sure what to make of the session.

Kevin Taylor, of Havertown, who got a license from Hanes on the second day they were available, said seeking to intervene in the Department of Health case may be just the start of his legal efforts.

"We'll probably continue to sign onto lawsuits until this is resolved," Taylor said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 05, 2013, 05:22:53 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/san-antonio-adopts-disputed-gay-rights-measure-200449629.html
9/5/13
San Antonio adopts disputed gay rights measure

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — San Antonio's leaders on Thursday approved anti-bias protections for gay and transgender residents, despite the disapproval of top Texas Republicans and religious conservatives who packed a City Council hearing and occasionally shamed supporters for comparing the issue to the civil rights movement.

The 8-3 City Council vote in favor of the ordinance was a victory for gay rights advocates and for Democratic Mayor Julian Castro, a top surrogate of President Barack Obama. Castro has called the ordinance overdue in the nation's seventh-largest city, where there is a stronger current of traditionalism and conservatism than other major Texas cities that already have similar gay rights protections[/color].

San Antonio joins nearly 180 other U.S. cities that have nondiscrimination ordinances that prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

"This ordinance is about saying there are no second-class citizens in San Antonio," Castro said.

Supporters in red shirts and opponents in blue sat on opposite sides of the ornate council chamber Thursday. Church leaders vowed petitions to recall council members, and the shouts of protesters outside City Hall often carried through the stone walls of the century-old building.

**They won't be able to b/c they're 501c3.

More than 700 people registered to speak Wednesday during a marathon session of citizen testimony that stretched past midnight. Just a few hours later, 100 people signed up Thursday morning to get in a final word before the vote.

Dee Villarubia, 67, said she's a former Air Force officer whose landlord at a San Antonio apartment evicted her two years ago because she is gay.

"When I say the pledge of allegiance, I say 'justice for some' because there's an asterisk that means not me," Villarubia said. "Today, I would take that asterisk away and finally say 'justice for all.'"

The local measure roiled conservatives nationwide and was opposed by big-name Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Abbott, a Republican who is seeking the governor's office, predicted a lawsuit over religious freedoms, though he has not said the state will challenge the ordinance.

Attention intensified after City Councilwoman Elisa Chan was caught on tape calling homosexuality "disgusting" and arguing that gays should not be allowed to adopt. Chan has defended her comments.

"Just because I disagree with the lifestyle of the LGBT community doesn't mean I dislike them," Chan said before the vote. "Similarly, just because one opposes this ordinance, does not mean one is for discrimination."

San Antonio City Attorney Michael Bernard told the council the ordinance would apply to most city contracts and contractors. It prohibits council members from discriminating in their official capacity and forbids workers in public accommodation jobs, such as at restaurants or hotels, from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Opponents say the ordinance — which takes effect immediately — would stifle religious expression and does not have the support of most of the city's residents.

"The problem I have is that you criminalize us if we speak our faith," said Marc Longoria, 42, a pastor at My Father's House Church. "We are Christians all the time. We don't have an on and off switch."

One side of the room would erupt in cheers or give a standing ovation depending on the remarks toward the 11-member council. Some turned around to address their opponents in the audience directly.

"My parents and my grandparents rode the back of the bus," said Sylvia Villarreal, who urged the council to vote no. "And I say shame on them for comparing this to civil rights."

The measure passed by the council amends protections already in place for discrimination based on race or gender.

Victories for gay rights advocates have been elusive in the Republican-controlled Texas Capitol. They've had more success on a local level: Houston has a lesbian mayor, and Austin offers health benefits for same-sex couples. Dallas, Houston, Austin, Fort Worth and El Paso are among the Texas cities that already have anti-bias ordinances of varying scope.

Conservative pushback in San Antonio was notable coming on the turf of Castro, a rising star who delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention last year. The opposition in his backyard was a weed in Castro's narrative that San Antonio embraces the kind of political values that will soon spread statewide and turn Texas blue.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on September 06, 2013, 02:36:01 am
Quote
Supporters in red shirts and opponents in blue sat on opposite sides of the ornate council chamber Thursday. Church leaders vowed petitions to recall council members, and the shouts of protesters outside City Hall often carried through the stone walls of the century-old building.

**They won't be able to b/c they're 501c3.

Yeah, the feds have made sure of that. They sign away their right to protest or even promote politicians or be involved in politics. It's very limited what they can "legally" do as a religious non-profit.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 06, 2013, 01:13:20 pm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/nm-supreme-court-christian-photographers-cant-refuse-gay-weddings-102870/
8/23/13
NM Supreme Court: Christian Photographers Can't Refuse Gay Weddings

In New Mexico, professional photographers may not refuse to work at gay weddings, that state's Supreme Court decided Thursday.

When Elane Photography refused to work for Vanessa Willock at her same-sex wedding, the Court said, it violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based upon sexual orientation.

"First, we conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples," Justice Edward Chavez wrote for the majority.

Chavez also wrote that refusing to work at a same-sex wedding is equivalent to refusing to work at a mixed-race wedding: "Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."

Elane Photography is not protected by their rights to freely exercise their religion, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution, because the NMHRA is a "neutral law of general applicability," the Court said. This means that the law does not target a specific religious group when it restricts Elane Photography's religious freedom.

In the proceedings, Elane Photography argued that it did not discriminate based upon sexual orientation because it would have photographed same-sex couples in other contexts. It was only the conveyance of a same-sex marriage in the company's photos that conflicted with the owner's religious beliefs.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Richard Bosson said that Elane Photography must be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of "the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. ... it is the price of citizenship."

"The idea that free people can be 'compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives' as the 'price of citizenship' is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom," said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom and one of the lawyers for Elane Photography. "Americans are now on notice that the price of doing business is their freedom. We are considering our next steps, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to right this wrong."

In a Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 adults conducted last month, 85 percent of respondents said that a Christian wedding photographer should be able to turn down work for a same-sex wedding.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on September 06, 2013, 01:50:28 pm
Quote
In a concurring opinion, Justice Richard Bosson said that Elane Photography must be forced to violate their religious beliefs because of "the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. ... it is the price of citizenship."

And THAT is the very basis of the conflict between real Christian doctrine and meddling in the world. It will not work. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon".

Christians should not be trying to be citizens of the world, but sons of God. Our citizenship is within the body of Christ, not some secular government.

"For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." Hebrews 13:14 (KJB)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 06, 2013, 01:54:07 pm
And THAT is the very basis of the conflict between real Christian doctrine and meddling in the world. It will not work. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon".

Christians should not be trying to be citizens of the world, but sons of God. Our citizenship is within the body of Christ, not some secular government.

"For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come." Hebrews 13:14 (KJB)

That caught my attention too - for example, Gerald Celente(a chief economist forecaster and one of the leaders of the "truth movement") called himself a "citizen of the world"(for the most part, these "truth movement" leaders like Celente, Alex, Rense, etc are controlled opposition fearmongerers).

Anyhow, yeah, this caught my attention too.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 09, 2013, 09:53:20 am
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/09/gay_inmates_california_marry.php
Gay Inmates in California Can Get Married
By Patrick Range McDonald Thu., Sep. 5 2013 at 1:24 PM

With the demise of Proposition 8 -- the gay marriage ban -- gay inmates in California can get married to their same-sex partners, the Associated Press has reported.

In an August 30 memo, state prison officials stated that due to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "effectively invalidated" Proposition 8, they "must accept and process applications for a same-sex marriage between an inmate and a non-incarcerated person in the community, in the same manner as they do between opposite sex couples."

In case you didn't notice the wording, there is a caveat in that statement...
 
While a gay inmate can marry a person who is not jailed, two gay inmates cannot get married.

California prison officials state in the memo that there are "security concerns and other legitimate penological interests" for why two gay inmates cannot wed.

It'll be interesting to see if someone challenges that ruling with a lawsuit.

In the meantime, same-sex marriages between an inmate and someone who's not incarcerated can only take place at a jail facility where the inmate is held, but a prison chaplain can refuse to marry the couple based on religious grounds.

So prison officials will allow a person who is "lawfully authorized" to come in and perform the ceremony.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 09, 2013, 04:07:51 pm
Being a member of the Louisiana Society of CPAs, got this in my email today. For now(apparently), states that don't allow SSM don't have to require sodomite couples to file MFJ on their state returns. Louisiana chooses not to.

9/9/13
IRS Same-Sex Marriage Guidance Released
 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Revenue Ruling 2013-17 to assist members with complying with the tax consequences of the Supreme Court decision in Windsor, S.Ct., June 26, 2013, 2013-2 USTC 50,400.
 
Revenue Ruling 2013-17 updates Revenue Ruling 58-66. In Revenue Ruling 58-66, 1958-1 C.B. 60, the IRS determined the status of individuals living in a common-law marriage for federal income tax purposes. This revenue ruling would determine the status of individuals of the same-sex who are lawfully married under the laws of a state that recognizes such marriages.
 
We have received communications and concerns from members on how these situations will be handled for Louisiana income taxes. The Louisiana Department of Revenue (LDR) has indicated the State of Louisiana will not follow this decision and guidance will be issued. We are continually monitoring this subject and will inform you immediately when something is issued.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 09, 2013, 11:33:56 pm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE_HAWAII?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-09-22-19-43
9/9/13
Hawaii gov. calls special session on gay marriage

HONOLULU (AP) -- Gov. Neil Abercrombie on Monday called for a special legislative session to move forward on a bill that would legalize gay marriage.

If lawmakers pass a bill, Hawaii would join 13 U.S. states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage. The special session is scheduled to begin Oct. 28.

The bill is the culmination of 20 years of discussion, Abercrombie told reporters during a news conference at the Hawaii Capitol.

"Every variation on a view with regard to the issue of marriage and equitable treatment for those engaged in marriage has been aired, has been analyzed, has been discussed," Abercrombie said. "No one has been left out or has been marginalized in the process to this point."

Abercrombie acknowledged that some people will be against the bill because they disagree with the concept of gay marriage, but he said it includes provisions - including a religious exemption - to protect First Amendment rights.

Abercrombie said he chose to call a special session rather than allow legislators to consider the issue next year in part because of implications on taxes for this year.

"There are serious, deep and wide-ranging consequences," Abercrombie said.

Abercrombie said if legislators move quickly and efficiently, the special session could last four to five days.

Hawaii is already among a handful of states that allow same-sex civil unions, which gay marriage advocates say stop short of the full benefits of marriage.

Proponents of gay marriage in the state renewed their efforts after seeing two U.S. Supreme Court rulings come down in line with their views in June. One ruling granted federal benefits to same-sex couples married in states where gay marriage is legal.

Abercrombie has been considering a special session since the rulings. He met privately last week with Democratic lawmakers in the House about the issue.

Hawaii's legislative chambers are both overwhelmingly composed of Democrats. Only one senator among 25 is Republican, while Democrats outnumber Republicans in the House 44-7.

If a bill is passed in time, Hawaii could begin issuing licenses and conducting ceremonies Nov. 18, Attorney General David Louie said.

Support for the bill is tight in the House, Speaker Joseph Souki said last week after meeting with Abercrombie and other lawmakers in a Democratic caucus.

Abercrombie said he won't be certain until the votes come, but he believes the bill has enough support to pass. He said it likely would not pass without the religious exemption.

**If you want more proof that the modern-day church system is compromised...

"We're trying to keep from imposing one set of views on each other that would end up with conflict and confrontation," he said. "We think that this bill achieves that delicate balance."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on September 19, 2013, 06:56:15 pm
Labor Dept: Same-Sex Spouses Must Receive Benefits Regardless of State Laws

On September 18, the Obama Labor Department announced that married same-sex couples must receive the same pensions, 401(k)s, health plans, and employee benefits as heterosexual married couples, regardless of whether they live in one of the 37 states where same-sex marriage is illegal.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/19/Labor-Dept-Same-Sex-Spouses-Must-Receive-Benefits-Regardless-Of-State-Laws


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 19, 2013, 09:14:11 pm
Labor Dept: Same-Sex Spouses Must Receive Benefits Regardless of State Laws

On September 18, the Obama Labor Department announced that married same-sex couples must receive the same pensions, 401(k)s, health plans, and employee benefits as heterosexual married couples, regardless of whether they live in one of the 37 states where same-sex marriage is illegal.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/19/Labor-Dept-Same-Sex-Spouses-Must-Receive-Benefits-Regardless-Of-State-Laws

So pretty much the federal government has one-upped the USSC's ruling?


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 21, 2013, 01:32:31 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/county-clerks-front-lines-u-gay-marriage-battle-164237421.html
County clerks on front lines of U.S. gay marriage battle
9/21/13

(Reuters) - For weeks, the lesbian couple courted the Guilford County register of deeds in North Carolina before asking for a marriage license. They went for coffee, shared life stories and, finally, prayed with him in a big circle on the grass outside his office.

Then they followed Jeffrey Thigpen inside, where he denied them and another lesbian couple a license, in line with the state's 2012 constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

It was a wrenching moment for both sides.

"I think deep down in his heart he knew that he should have been giving us a license but he couldn't do it," said Tracey Bridges, a software trainer who had applied with her partner, Cheryl. "This law doesn't just hurt couples like us, it hurts people who have to enforce the law."

"It was very difficult emotionally," said Thigpen, who says he supports gay marriage. "I left work. It was a tough day."

The meeting this week between Thigpen and the lesbian couples came as county clerks have been thrust to the forefront of the U.S. battle over gay marriage after two local officials from New Mexico and Pennsylvania this summer began unilaterally issuing wedding licenses to same-sex couples.

Taking advantage of a lack of legal clarity over gay marriage in New Mexico, a county clerk there began issuing same-sex marriage licenses that have so far been allowed to stand. In Pennsylvania, a county register of wills handed out the licenses to gay and lesbian couples despite a state law banning same-sex marriage, before a judge ordered him to stop.

Some proponents of gay marriage have celebrated those high profile moves, saying they add momentum to the fight to allow same-sex nuptials in places outside the 13 U.S. states that allow it. Opponents see them as trying to make an end-run around the law.

Lynn Ellins, the county clerk in southern New Mexico's Dońa Ana County who began issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples in August, said he believes clerks in states without laws allowing gay marriage will soon do the same thing.

"I wouldn't be surprised if other clerks bit the bullet," Ellins said in a telephone interview. "I can't be the only one out there thinking the way I'm thinking."


The Democrat makes that prediction even though he was sued by several Republican state lawmakers seeking to roll back his action, and was forced to raise more than $31,000 in private donations to defend against the lawsuit.

Since Ellins began issuing the licenses, officials in seven other New Mexico counties have begun doing the same thing. Those include the state's most populous county of Bernalillo, which started issuing licenses after a district judge found denying gay couples the right to marry violated the state constitution.

Gay marriage opponents are paying keen attention to the actions of county clerks.

"What happened both in New Mexico and Pennsylvania was utter lawlessness. You had two county clerks who felt they were above or outside the law," said Chris Plante, spokesman for the National Organization for Marriage.

MORE OUT THERE?

Plante said he was concerned that New Mexico's Republican governor did not go to court to seek to block Ellins from issuing licenses. In Pennsylvania, the governor's administration won a court order to stop the Montgomery County register of wills from doing so.

"What's going to convince another county clerk in another state to either uphold the law or violate the law is going to be their own perception of what happens," Plante said.

A 1996 Pennsylvania law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. However, New Mexico is one of two states - New Jersey is the other - that do not explicitly ban gay marriage and do not allow it statewide.

County clerks in New Mexico have asked the state Supreme Court to decide whether same sex marriage should be allowed across the state. A hearing is scheduled for next month.

Twenty-nine states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman while six others including Illinois, Indiana and Hawaii have laws that do so, said Jack Tweedie, director of the children and families program for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

New Jersey's gender-neutral laws on marriage appear to provide wiggle room for action by clerks, he said, but gay rights groups are working to win the legal right to same-sex marriage there.

Public support for gay marriage has been growing, with a July Gallup poll showing 52 percent of Americans would like to see it legalized throughout the country.

That support is weakest in the South, where Cheryl and Tracey Bridges live. They asked Thigpen for a marriage license this week in a North Carolina action organized by grassroots group Campaign for Southern Equality.

The group is seeking to find a single official in the South who will issue a same-sex marriage license in defiance of state laws or constitutions.

Since 2011, the gay rights organization has sent more 80 gay and lesbian couples to seek marriage licenses in the South or have their out-of-state same-sex marriage recognized in their home states, organizers said. All have been denied.

The campaign also has sent more than 600 letters urging local officials across the South to grant same-sex couples wedding licenses, citing the actions of their counterparts in New Mexico and Pennsylvania, said Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, the group's executive director.

For the Bridges, who have been together 12 years and legally took the same last name but are not married, the denial in North Carolina followed weeks of getting to know Thigpen, the clerk.

They went for coffee and told Thigpen about Cheryl's battle with breast cancer, and their concern about being able to make decisions for each other at a hospital.

"His staff says it's hard on Jeff," Cheryl Bridges, a Quaker minister, said last week.

In joining with the two lesbian couples and dozens of their supporters for prayer outside his offices on Monday, Thigpen was seeking reconciliation, he later said in a phone interview.

"I did pray for them and in that prayer I prayed for people on every side of this issue, that we all can move through this eventually and focus on issues that unite us rather than divide us," Thigpen said.

(Additional reporting by Dave Warner in Philadelphia and Zelie Pollon in Santa Fe; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Doina Chiacu)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on September 22, 2013, 04:26:01 am
Since when do county clerks get to make law? If county boards were doing their jobs, they'd be firing those clerks that take the law into their own hands. But then it's the world so... ::)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on September 24, 2013, 06:49:56 am
Arkansas Attorney General OKs Petition to Place Repeal of State Marriage Amendment on Ballot

The attorney general of Arkansas has given the go-ahead to a homosexual rights group to begin collecting signatures for a petition to place the revocation of the state marriage amendment on the 2014 ballot.
 
Dustin McDaniel approved the wording of the proposal, which was submitted by Christina Harrison of Arkansans for Equality. The attorney general must review all recommended ballot initiatives before groups may begin gathering signatures of support.
 
McDaniel told reporters with the Arkansas News that the initiative would not legalize same-sex marriage if passed, but would rather “revive the General Assembly’s authority to pass such laws relating to same-sex marriage as it deems appropriate.” State law also prohibits marriage as being defined outside of one man and woman, and would remain in place unless repealed in separate efforts by the legislature.
 
The Arkansas attorney general had rejected other proposals in recent months surrounding the issue, stating that they had “deficiencies” and may mislead residents into thinking that the measure would legalize homosexual “marriage in the state.”

“Fundraising is our first effort in having to get about 75,000 signatures,” Judd Mann of Arkansans for Equality told the Associated Press. “So we have a long, hard road ahead in front of us, but we are so excited.”
 
However, Jerry Cox of the Arkansas Family Council said that the organization would fight the initiative to ensure its defeat.
 
“Are we taking this seriously? Absolutely we are,” Cox told reporters. “It’s a serious thing to try to legalize same-sex marriage and we are going to oppose this effort. However, they are a long way from actually passing this measure.”

rest: http://christiannews.net/2013/09/21/arkansas-attorney-general-oks-petition-to-place-repeal-of-state-marriage-amendment-on-ballot/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on September 27, 2013, 11:58:10 am
Ohio Lawsuit Seeks to Force Funeral Directors to Recognize Same-Sex ‘Marriages’

A lawsuit that has been underway for the past several several months in Ohio was expanded this week in an effort to force all funeral directors and coroners in the state to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ that were performed in other states.
 
Homosexual “marriage” is illegal in Ohio, but some from the state have traveled elsewhere to work around the prohibition. However, because Ohio will not recognize those relationships as being valid, four homosexual men have found that when they die, they will not be acknowledged as couples by the state.
 
In seeking to be recognized on their partner’s death certificates, the men filed suit, asking that a federal court allow their relationships to be recognized.
 
The suit began with James Obergefell and John Arthur, the latter of which struggles with Lou Gehrig’s disease. The two want to be buried next to each other, but the cemetery they desire only allows spouses and relatives to have adjacent plots.

 

“Married couples, often through research based on death records, have recognition for their special status forever,” Obergefell stated. “I want my descendants generations from now who research their history to learn that I loved and married John and that he loved and married me. They will know that they had gay ancestor who was proud and strong and in love.”
 
Judge Timothy Black then granted the request, and two months later, another two men joined the suit: William Ives and David Michener. Ives had passed away, and Michener wanted to be listed as Ives’ spouse on his death certificate before he was cremated. Black likewise granted the request.
 
This Wednesday, funeral director Robert Grunn joined the lawsuit, which was amended in an effort to require the state health director to order funeral homes and coroners throughout Ohio to recognize homosexuals that were “married” in ceremonies in other states as a couple.

“He has a duty under Ohio law to report accurate personal information when it comes to death certificates.” attorney Al Gerhardstein
 told local television station WKRC. “If he gives inaccurate information he could be exposed to criminal prosecution so he’s asking the court, ‘Tell me court, am I allowed to say these people are married if they’re married in another state and can I put married on the death certificate?’”
 
However, Clermont County Representative John Becker is displeased with Judge Black’s actions, and is calling for his impeachment. He recently wrote a letter to U.S. Representative Brad Wenstrup to request that the impeachment process be commenced.
 
“Judge Black has demonstrated his incompetence by allowing his personal political bias to supersede jurisprudence,” Becker wrote. “This will begin the process of restoring state sovereignty back to the original intent of the US Constitution.”
 
However, Wenstrup said that he will wait for the appeals court to rule before taking any action.

“While Judge Black’s ruling violated the Ohio Constitution and the will of Ohio voters, the question of whether this decision also violated the U.S. Constitution remains before a higher court,” he wrote in a statement. “I will watch those appellate proceedings closely to see if Judge Black’s decision is upheld and I have full confidence in the Ohio’s office of the Attorney General during the appeals process.”
 
Becker said that he will fight the case to the best of his ability.
 
“I see this as a like a future Roe versus Wade type of case,” he commented. “And if there’s anything I can do to head that off and stop it, that’s what I intend to do.”
 
Black is expected to rule on the matter in December.

http://christiannews.net/2013/09/27/ohio-lawsuit-seeks-to-force-funeral-directors-to-recognize-same-sex-marriages/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 27, 2013, 02:42:50 pm
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Same-Sex-Marriage-Civil-Unions-Judge--225542472.html

New Jersey Judge: Same-Sex Couples Must Be Allowed to Marry

Friday, Sep 27, 2013

A state court judge said in a ruling Friday that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in New Jersey, and that the rights given to them under the state's civil unions law are not equal to federal benefits now granted to married gay couples.

Judge Mary Jacobson granted a summary judgment requested by Garden State Equality, which had claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the federal Defense of Marriage Act meant that same-sex couples in civil unions in New Jersey were being denied equal protection.

"The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts," the judge said.

"Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution," she wrote.

The ruling does not mean that same-sex marriages will begin immediately in New Jersey. The state has until Oct. 21 to either appeal or start the process to allow gay marriages.

The Christie administration was expected to appeal.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on September 27, 2013, 02:50:58 pm
"For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:8 (KJB)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 10, 2013, 06:11:12 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/10/nj-gay-marriage-stay-denied/2961991/
10/10/13
Judge denies N.J.'s stay request of gay marriage ruling

New Jersey had appealed the judge's Sept. 27 ruling that the civil union law denied gay couples equal rights.

TRENTON, N.J. -- A New Jersey judge has denied the state's request for a stay in her order to legalize same-sex marriage on Oct. 21.

New Jersey requested the stay and appealed Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson's Sept. 27 ruling that the state's civil union law effectively denied gay couples equal rights. Her ruling also ordered that gay couples be allowed to marry as of Oct. 21.

Jacobson denied the state's request "because of the irreparable harm that would be caused to Plaintiffs by the granting of a stay."

The ruling is a blow to Gov. Chris Christie's administration's efforts to defend the state's civil union law. Christie has repeatedly said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and that any change in the law should be put to a vote rather than legalized by judicial decree or legislative action.

Christie had vetoed a 2012 bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage. Democrats in the Legislature have been seeking enough votes to override that veto, but even though several GOP lawmakers decided to support an override, more votes are needed to reach the two-thirds of members required.

The state in its appeal argued the denial of a stay would result in irreparable injury. Jacobson, the assignment judge in Mercer County, disagreed.

"In making this argument, however, the State ignores the largely abstract nature of the harm it alleges, which pales in comparison to the concrete harm caused to Plaintiffs by their current ineligibility for many federal marital benefits, and the significant litigation burden they would have to shoulder to challenge federal denial of marital benefits to civil union couples," Jacobson wrote.

Her denial of the stay was considered a victory by the advocacy groups seeking legalized same-sex marriage.

"This is wonderful news!" said Hayley Gorenberg, the deputy legal director of Lambda Legal who filed the brief seeking to legalize gay marriage. "The court's decision once again confirms that the hardships of not being able to marry are real and immediate."

John Tomicki — executive director of the League of American Families, an organization that does not favor legalized same-sex marriage — said Jacobson's denial was expected.

"We hope that the Supreme Court will take the case quickly so that the full constitutional issues that are now presented can be heard," said Tomicki. "And we would believe that, in all fairness, the Supreme Court will grant a stay."

Lambda Legal's brief was filed after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June, saying the law wrongly denied federal benefits to gay couples married in states with legal same-sex marriage.

New Jersey, however, only allows gay couples to enter civil unions, which made them not eligible for federal benefits under the Supreme Court ruling. Lambda Legal sought summary judgment declaring that the state's civil union law denied legal rights granted under the federal court decision. New Jersey opposed Lambda Legal's brief.

Jacobson ruled in Lambda Legal's favor.

New Jersey United For Marriage Campaign Manager Mike Premo said Jacobson's denial of the stay was a "historic moment." Premo, though, added that his group would continue to push for a legislative remedy as well.

"We can't stop now," he said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 15, 2013, 04:59:52 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/n-c-official-accepts-same-sex-marriage-applications-175236651.html
10/15/13
N.C. official accepts same-sex marriage applications despite ban

WINSTON-SALEM, North Carolina (Reuters) - A North Carolina official accepted marriage license applications on Tuesday from 12 same-sex couples - an unprecedented move in the U.S. South that advocates hoped would spur others to challenge state bans on such weddings.

Drew Reisinger, the elected register of deeds for Buncombe County, which includes Asheville, did not immediately issue the licenses as two local officials in New Mexico and Pennsylvania have done.

But he questioned the legality of North Carolina's prohibition against same-sex marriages in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denying benefits to same-sex married couples.

"Why are we denying same-sex couples in North Carolina the dignity and the legal acknowledgement granted to heterosexual couples here or same-sex couples in other states?" Reisinger said in a letter seeking a formal opinion from the state attorney general.

"Marriage rights are civil rights and should not vary based on where you live," he added.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, said this week that he personally supports gay marriage but is committed to defending the state ban in a pending lawsuit.

Gay marriage opponents see local officials who issue licenses to same-sex couples residing outside the 13 states and District of Columbia that have legalized gay marriage as trying to make an end-run around the law.

"It is very clear that Registers of Deeds in North Carolina have no legal authority to either accept applications for nor issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples," said Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition.

In 2012, North Carolina became the last state in the South, where support for gay marriage has lagged behind other parts of the country, to add a voter-approved ban on gay marriage to its constitution.

Twenty-nine U.S. states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and six other states have laws that do so.

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Cooper said his office is not typically involved in issuing or approving marriage licenses, leaving unclear whether the attorney general will heed Reisinger's request for clarification on the issue.

"The State Constitution says that these marriage licenses cannot be issued, and this is the law unless the Constitution is changed, or the court says otherwise," spokeswoman Noelle Talley said in an email.

In Pennsylvania, Attorney General Kathleen Kane, also a Democrat, said in July she would not defend her state's ban on gay marriage in a federal court case there, calling the ban "wholly unconstitutional."

Gay marriage advocates in North Carolina said they hoped Cooper's legal analysis of his state's ban would evolve to match his personal stance on marriage equality.

"We're hopeful that Attorney General Cooper will take a similar position" to Kane's and refuse to defend the ban, said Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality.

The experience in Buncombe County on Tuesday was a refreshing change for Brenda Clark and Carol McCrory, an educational consultant and retired lawyer who have been together for 25 years. Their four previous attempts to obtain a marriage license had been rejected outright.

This time, Reisinger held their hands and told them he planned to ask the attorney general for permission to grant the couple a license to wed in their home state, McCrory said.

"It was really emotional for us, to finally take one step forward," she said. "We were amazed that he had the courage to do this, at great personal risk."

Reisinger said he does not intend to break the law.

"I just don't know how to proceed because it seems like the North Carolina constitution no longer protects the rights of all people like our United States constitution grants us," he said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 16, 2013, 04:53:11 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/mich-same-sex-marriage-lawsuit-trial-193826757.html
Mich. same-sex marriage lawsuit to go to trial
10/16/13

DETROIT (AP) — A federal judge stunned the courtroom Wednesday by saying he'll hold a trial before deciding whether to overturn Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said he won't make a decision without hearing testimony from experts on whether there's a legitimate state interest in banning gay marriage. He scheduled a trial for Feb. 25.

"I wish I could give you a definitive ruling. ... There are fact issues that have to be decided," Friedman said.

Friedman clearly caught the lawyers off guard. They had agreed to have him decide the issue on arguments and briefs. There was a groan in a nearby room where dozens of people were watching a video feed.

Two Detroit-area nurses in a lesbian relationship, Jayne Rowse, 49, and April DeBoer, 42, wanted to adopt each other's children, not rewrite Michigan law. But their lawsuit took an extraordinary turn a year ago when Friedman suggested they refile it to challenge the gay marriage ban.

In doing so, they argued the state's constitutional amendment violates the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

A state constitutional amendment declaring marriage as between a man and a woman was approved by 59 percent of Michigan voters in 2004. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage.

More than 100 people were in the courtroom Wednesday. Several dozen people in favor of gay marriage also rallied outside of the courthouse.

"This amendment enshrines discrimination in the state constitution for all time," the couple's attorney, Carole Stanyar, told the judge.

Moments earlier, she said U.S. history has at times revealed a lack of humanity, "but at times we right ourselves ... and reaffirm the principle that there are no second-class citizens."

Rowse and DeBoer, who have lived together for about eight years, sat just a few steps away at the plaintiffs' table.

An attorney for Michigan said the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that states have authority to regulate marriage. Kristin Heyse noted that more than 2.5 million voters supported the amendment.

"The people of the state of Michigan should be allowed to decide Michigan law. This is not the proper forum to decide social issues," said Heyse, an assistant attorney general.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 17, 2013, 06:23:59 pm
http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-recognizes-same-sex-marriages/
10/17/13
Oregon Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages

Same-sex couples who marry outside of Oregon will have their unions recognized in the state. A new opinion from Oregon’s Department of Justice stated the change.

The state’s decision took effect immediately. It does not mean gay couples can marry in Oregon, but now the state recognizes legal marriages from other places.

Matt Shelby is with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.

“Really what this does is, it asks all state agencies to treat a same-sex couple, that has been legally wed in another state, the same as they would treat any other married couple that is a legal marriage,” Shelby says.

The Oregon Department of Justice is delivering this decision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

A proposed ballot initiative for next year would overturn Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 18, 2013, 01:57:25 pm
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21026864-nj-supreme-court-rules-state-must-begin-allowing-gay-marriages-on-monday?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2
10/18/13
NJ Supreme Court rules state must begin allowing gay marriages on Monday

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the state must begin granting same-sex marriage licenses on Monday, a rebuff to Gov. Chris Christie.

Christie, a Republican, favors civil unions, which New Jersey has offered since 2007, but opposes gay marriage. The state had tried to delay the granting of licenses pending an appeal.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 18, 2013, 05:24:26 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/christie-nj-comply-gay-marriage-order-200118667.html
Christie: NJ will comply with gay marriage order
10/18/13

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says he disagrees with it, but he will comply with a state Supreme Court ruling that makes same-sex marriage legal in the state starting Monday.

Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak says in a statement that the governor "firmly believes that this determination should be made by all the people of the state of New Jersey."

But he says the state Health Department will help towns carry out Friday's state Supreme Court ruling.

The court denied the Christie administration's request to delay a lower-court order that the state recognize same-sex marriage beginning Monday.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 18, 2013, 09:46:25 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/senator-booker-perform-nj-gay-weddings-220449355.html
Senator-to-be Booker to perform NJ gay weddings
10/18/13

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — U.S. Sen.-elect Cory Booker says he will officiate at weddings of both gay and heterosexual couples as the mayor of Newark now that New Jersey is allowing same-sex marriage.

Booker said in a statement Friday that he is excited to marry couples at City Hall starting at 12:01 a.m. Monday.

On Friday, New Jersey's highest court ruled unanimously to uphold an order that gay weddings must start Monday and to deny a delay sought by Gov. Chris Christie's administration.

The Newark mayor was elected Wednesday to the U.S. Senate and has been a strong supporter of gay rights. He says he has refused all requests to officiate marriages for the past seven years on principle.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on October 21, 2013, 04:09:32 am
New Jersey Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Order to Allow Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ in State

The Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously ruled on Friday to uphold a lower court order that mandated officials to allow same-sex ‘marriages’ to be performed and recognized in the state.

As previously reported, Judge Mary Jacobson of the Mercer County Superior Court released the order last month, citing the recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court, which struck down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

rest: http://christiannews.net/2013/10/19/new-jersey-supreme-court-unanimously-upholds-order-to-allow-same-sex-marriage-in-state/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on October 21, 2013, 02:38:07 pm
Newark Mayor Orders Removal of Christian for Objecting to State’s First-Ever Homosexual ‘Marriage’
 
NEWARK – The mayor of Newark, New Jersey ordered the removal of a Christian man from city hall on Monday for raising an objection…

http://christiannews.net/2013/10/21/newark-mayor-orders-removal-of-christian-for-objecting-to-states-first-ever-homosexual-marriage/
 


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on October 21, 2013, 03:57:28 pm
THAT is not the actions of a Christian. Booker is acting more like a devil.

Quote
Booker introduced Joseph Panessidi and Orville Bell, whom he stated were personal friends and the first to be “wed.” Moments later, noting that he must do so by law, Booker asked if there were any objections to the union. de Rouville then spoke up, declaring, “This is unlawful in the eyes of God and Jesus Christ.”

Booker immediately ordered that de Rouville be removed from City Hall, and police officers grabbed him by both arms and escorted him out of the building as he continued to preach.

“Turn to Jesus Christ!” de Rouville called out. “He alone can save!”

“Not hearing any substantive and worthy objections, I will now proceed,” Booker stated as deRouville was being led away, while cheers and applause resounded from the crowd.

The ceremony then went forward as Booker officiated several ceremonies back-to-back.

“I was merely exercising my free speech as Senator-elect Booker had asked a question to those assembled,” de Rouville told Christian News Network Monday afternoon. “As a Christian, I was duty-bound to bear witness, and it’s absolutely every Christian’s responsibility to speak against the unfruitful works of darkness.”

During his bid for Senate, 45 local churches voiced their support for Booker, despite his position on homosexuality and abortion, including his home church in Newark.

“Whatever he does is not on me,” Kevin Greenwood of Morning Star Baptist Church in Newark told Christian News Network Sunday afternoon, just hours before the ceremony. “He’ll have to deal with that when the time comes.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on October 21, 2013, 04:07:22 pm
THAT is not the actions of a Christian. Booker is acting more like a devil.


Booker is no Christian at all.

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


Quote
“For more than seven years, Mayor Booker has refused all requests to officiate New Jersey marriages because gay couples have been denied that equal right,”

“After today’s wonderful news [from the state Supreme Court], Mayor Booker is excited to marry both straight and gay couples in city hall on Monday morning beginning at 12:01 a.m.”

Following cheers and applause, Booker introduced Joseph Panessidi and Orville Bell, whom he stated were personal friends and the first to be “wed.” Moments later, noting that he must do so by law, Booker asked if there were any objections to the union. de Rouville then spoke up, declaring, “This is unlawful in the eyes of God and Jesus Christ.”
 
Booker immediately ordered that de Rouville be removed from City Hall, and police officers grabbed him by both arms and escorted him out of the building as he continued to preach.
 
“Turn to Jesus Christ!” de Rouville called out. “He alone can save!”
 
“Not hearing any substantive and worthy objections, I will now proceed,” Booker stated

The ceremony then went forward as Booker officiated several ceremonies back-to-back.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 21, 2013, 06:51:05 pm
Booker got elected to the Senate(to replace Frank Launtenberg-sp) b/c Chris Christie moved this special election up to October. Of course, Christie is part of the NWO team.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 22, 2013, 04:56:05 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couple-uses-tribal-law-to-marry-in-oklahoma-184155790.html
Gay couple uses tribal law to marry in Oklahoma
10/22/13

A same-sex couple successfully applied for a marriage license in Oklahoma despite the state’s strict rules against gay marriage. The pair used a legal loophole to get the license last Friday under tribal law, which doesn't fall under the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as occurring only between a man and a woman. They plan to wed Oct. 31.

Darren Black Bear, a member of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, was able to get a marriage license to wed his partner of nine years, Jason Pickel, because the tribe’s legal system does not specify two people must be of different genders to be wed.

Rosemary Stephens, the editor in chief of the tribes’ Tribal Tribune, told Yahoo News another gay couple in the tribe wed in December 2012 under the law, but did not make their union public. At least one person in the couple must be an enrolled member of the tribe in order to get a marriage license, however.

Stephens said no one in the tribe has raised any objections to the practice of giving out marriage licenses to both straight and gay couples. “They’re held in high esteem,” Stephens said of Black Bear and Pickel.

While Oklahoma won’t recognize the marriage, the federal government most likely will, thanks to last June's Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The court said the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages, but said states are free to ignore and prohibit them if they want.

There is still confusion about what the ruling means for the rights of same-sex married couples who live in states that don’t recognize them, which will most likely be worked out in future court battles.

Pickel plans to take Black Bear’s last name, and the two hope to file their federal taxes jointly, Stephens said. The men are marrying in Watonga, Okla.

“When we have equality in all 50 states and all U.S. territories, that is when we'll have true equality,” Pickel  told a local TV station. “That's when I will be truly, truly happy.” Pickel didn't immediately return a request for comment from Yahoo News.

The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes have nearly 12,500 members, about 60 percent of whom live in Oklahoma.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 26, 2013, 08:23:44 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hawaii-stage-gay-marriage-debate-20686928
Hawaii to Become Next Stage in Gay Marriage Debate
HONOLULU October 26, 2013 (AP)

The island state that helped make gay marriage a national discussion could be the next state to legalize it after more than two decades.

Many credit a Hawaii case that started in 1990 with prompting action in courts, statehouses and Congress, leading to the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 that was eventually struck down this year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, a special session starting Monday could make Hawaii the newest state to formally legalize gay marriage, a move proponents say would finish the job and exemplify the state's fabled aloha spirit — while granting equality and spurring tourism.

Opponents have taken up many fronts. Some argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Others say the matter should go to a vote, not be rushed outside the regular legislative calendar.

For Dr. Allan Wang, a 56-year-old Hawaii doctor, the issue is about being treated fairly.

"It's unfair that our amazing relationship — which we've been together over 33 years — our amazing relationship cannot be acknowledged," Wang said, sitting next to his partner, Tom Humphreys, a longtime molecular biology professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Wang and Humphreys, 77, married in California in July, one month after entering a civil union in Hawaii and after decades of pressing for gay marriage in the state. Humphreys said they were effectively forced to marry outside Hawaii after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer and told he had only a short time to live.

They married exactly one week after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, granting federal benefits to legally married gay couples. Congress had passed the act in 1996 as part of a growing backlash to a case from Hawaii at the time, after a couple tried to apply for a marriage license in 1990.

Differences between civil unions and full-fledged marriage have been a key part of the debate in Hawaii. A lawsuit pending in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals argues that gay couples should be allowed to marry and shouldn't have to settle for civil unions.

In calling the special session that begins Monday, Gov. Neil Abercrombie said passing gay marriage would help resolve the lawsuit and put Hawaii in line with Supreme Court rulings, which don't apply to couples in civil unions.

On Friday, the attorney general of Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, filed a brief in the appeals case and another case from Nevada involving couples who argue the state's ban is not constitutional. Attorneys general from 14 other states are listed as co-counsel.

Coakley said in the filing that civil marriage has been strengthened by removing barriers to access.

"Nevada and Hawaii marriage laws deny gay men and lesbians the fundamental right to marry and codify the second-class status — for its own sake — of same-sex couples and their families," the filing said. "Under any standard of constitutional analysis, they cannot survive review."

Lawmakers and followers of Hawaii's Legislature — which is heavily Democrat — say they're confident a bill will pass, but not certain.

"It would appear that it's going to be difficult for us to prevail, but we're hopeful," said Father Gary Secor, vicar general of the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. "The history of the church is that we have not tended to always go with popular or prevailing opinion about things."

Rep. Chris Lee, a Kailua Democrat who supports the bill, said legislators have been bombarded by passionate calls on both sides.

Jim Hochberg, president of Hawaii Family Advocates, said coalitions from every Hawaii island are building to push for a public vote.

"They don't support the concept of same-sex marriage. They don't support the special session," Hochberg said. "They want to vote on it."

The legislative hearings are expected to draw heavy crowds, with an opposition rally planned Monday night.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 29, 2013, 11:45:57 am
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/richmond-city-council-approves-gay-marriage-ordinance/article_90ea7eb4-4045-11e3-8d2e-001a4bcf6878.html
Spousal benefits for gay employees backed by council(Richmond, Virginia)
10/29/13


The impassioned debate over gay marriage burst into Richmond City Hall on Monday night as the City Council voted to approve an ordinance granting spousal benefits to gay employees — if Virginia law eventually allows it.
 
After several speakers warned of the wrath of God if the council approved the ordinance, five council members voted in favor of it, three opposed it and one abstained.

Councilman Chris A. Hilbert, 3rd District, noted the mention of final judgment in defending his vote in support of the ordinance.

“I’m very assured that when I’m standing there that my vote tonight won’t be something that I am ashamed of,” Hilbert said. “It will be something where we are expanding compassion to our fellow human beings.”

Council President Charles R. Samuels, 2nd District, compared the ordinance to similar pre-emptive measures the city has taken to prepare for the potential privatization of ABC stores.

“We know that’s coming,” Samuels said. “And when it comes, the city of Richmond’s ready.”

The council members who didn’t support the ordinance seemed to do so on procedural grounds, with several arguing that passing a symbolic ordinance is not the proper way to send a message to the General Assembly.

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on November 01, 2013, 06:29:13 am
Justices O’Connor, Ginsburg perform same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremonies inside Supreme Court

This week saw two same-sex “weddings” performed within the walls of the United States Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, respectively.
 
While same-sex “marriage” has been legal in Washington, D.C., since 2009, the federal DOMA law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman prohibited such ceremonies from being performed on federal property. Ginsburg voted to strike down a provision of DOMA in June.
 
Justice Ginsburg, 80, officiated the first of the two ceremonies last weekend, presiding over the “marriage” of one of her former law students, Ralph Lee Pellecchio, 64, to James Carter Wernz, 69, according to an announcement in the New York Times. The “wedding” was reportedly performed inside her chambers.
 
The ceremony was Ginsburg's third. In August, Ginsburg became the first Supreme Court justice to preside over a homosexual “wedding.” The ceremony for 59-year-old Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and 32-year-old John Roberts, a commodities regulator, was held at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. At the time, both Kaiser and Ginsburg said the couple’s choice of officiant was intended to send a message, legitimizing gay “marriage” in the eyes of the public. Kaiser told the Associated Press her participation "helps to encourage others and to make the issue seem less of an issue, to make it just more part of life."
 
Ginsburg later said same-sex “marriage” represented the “genius” of the U.S. Constitution.
 
Justice Sandra O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981

 On Tuesday, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 83, officiated the second known homosexual ceremony at the high court, “marrying” two men in a private lounge. O’Connor had previously worked with one of the men, lobbyist Jeffrey Trammell, when she was chancellor of the College of William and Mary in Virginia and he was rector.
 
O’Connor’s decision to preside over a gay “wedding” at the highest court in America is just the latest step in a long march leftward for the former justice, who was appointed in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan..

In 1986’s Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court’s first case dealing with the legalities of homosexual activity, O’Connor sided with Justice Byron White, who said a constitutional right to sodomy was “at best, facetious.” At the time, the court upheld Georgia’s right to ban the behavior.
 
But just 10 years later, O’Connor switched sides, joining Justice Anthony Kennedy and four liberal justices in ruling that Colorado could not constitutionally bar municipalities from passing homosexual anti-discrimination laws, giving homosexuals their first major Supreme Court victory. Then, in 2003, during Lawrence v. Texas, she sided with Kennedy again, ruling that Texas’s anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional.
 
That ruling invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making sodomy legal nationwide.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/justices-oconnor-ginsburg-perform-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies-inside-supre


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 06, 2013, 10:54:28 am
http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/hawaii-house-committees-forward-gay-marriage-bill.html
11/6/13

Hawaii House committees forward gay marriage bill
By OSKAR GARCIA

Associated Press

HONOLULU — Two state House committees sent a bill that would legalize gay marriage to the full chamber Tuesday night, ending a five-day public hearing that exposed deep divisions in Hawaii on an issue being considered across the United States.

Members of the House Judiciary and Finance committees voted for the bill after hearing more than 55 hours of public testimony, leading to alterations in the measure.

The committees made three amendments. One strengthens provisions that exempt clergy and organizations from having to perform gay marriage ceremonies, modeled after a similar law in Connecticut. Another deletes language that governed how children of gay couples could establish Native Hawaiian parentage to qualify for state benefits. A third moves the date ceremonies can begin to Dec. 2.

The full House is expected to consider the bill in a second reading this morning, with the possibility of fully passing the bill Friday, House spokeswoman Carolyn Tanaka said.

The amendments mean the measure will have to be approved again by the state Senate, which passed the original bill last week.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who called the special session and would be asked to sign the bill, said in a joint statement with Attorney General David Louie that the bill and its amendments are sound and should be passed by the Legislature. The executives said the amendments balance the concerns raised during the hearings.

The committee votes came after lawmakers wrapped up taking comments Tuesday afternoon from speakers given two minutes each to make their case.

“I think it’s probably the longest hearing ever in the history of Hawaii,” said Rep. Karl Rhoads, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, thanking staffers and members of the public for sticking around for a hearing that began on Halloween.

Before voting, lawmakers took turns to explain their thoughts on the bill and the process in short speeches that were at times emotional, personal and unmistakably political.

”Marriage needs help,” said Rep. Kaniela Ing, reflecting on his childhood and urging churches to change their views on people who are gay.

Rep. Mele Carroll said she supports equal rights for same-sex couples but is upset because people feel betrayed by their government because of the special session being used to hear the bill.

“I’m sad because of the process,” said a teary-eyed Carroll, who voted against the bill and said there hasn’t been enough time to discuss the issue.

Rep. Gene Ward, a Republican against the bill, said on the House floor Tuesday night that he planned to offer two amendments to broaden religious exemptions and exempt teachers from having to change classroom instruction because of the law.

Lawmakers initially planned to vote on the bill in second reading Tuesday night, but Rhoads said changes to the bill and a desire to let staff sleep led lawmakers to push the second reading to the next day.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on November 06, 2013, 05:56:28 pm
Illinois Lawmakers Vote to Legalize Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Following Biblical Debate

SPRINGFIELD – Lawmakers in Illinois have voted to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ in the state, making the ‘Land of Lincoln’ the 15th in the nation…

rest: http://christiannews.net/2013/11/06/illinois-lawmakers-vote-to-legalize-same-sex-marriage-following-biblical-debate/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on November 07, 2013, 03:53:23 am
From the House Speaker...

Quote
But House Speaker Michael Madigan cited the recent remarks of Pope Francis in explaining his decision to support the bill.
Connect with Christian News

“[T]he quote that I offer is a quote from Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic church, who is quoted as saying, ‘If someone is gay, and he searches for the Lord, and he has good will, who am I to judge?’” he stated. “Pope Francis has spoken, and he has articulated the basis of my thinking on this issue.”

 ::)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 07, 2013, 10:22:56 am
Looks like this new Pope has already made his influence to the world, and big time.

Like I said in other threads - there's this mainstream GOP establishment forum I go to to get news articles - for some reason, even they are continuing to defend Pope Frankie through and through(ie-they continue to blame the "liberal media" for somehow "distorting" his comments).



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 07, 2013, 10:28:52 am
FYI, the Illinois state House Speaker(that quoted Frankie's pro-gay comments) is apparently Jesuit trained...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Madigan

Early life[edit]

Madigan was born in Chicago and has lived there most of his life. He attended St. Ignatius College Prep on the west side of Chicago. He attended college at the University of Notre Dame and graduated from the Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Madigan represents the 22nd Representative District on Chicago's southwest side. He has also served for many years as Democratic Committeeman of the 13th ward. His is generally considered one of the more effective ward organizations at a time when the vote-getting power of such groups has declined notably.[citation needed]


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 08, 2013, 08:20:32 pm
Same-Sex Couples Sue Idaho Over State Ban on Gay Marriage
11/8/13
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-08/same-sex-couples-sue-idaho-over-state-ban-on-gay-marriage.html

Quinn to sign gay marriage bill into law Nov. 20
11/8/13
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-quinn-to-sign-gay-marriage-bill-into-law-nov-20-20131107,0,6334248.story


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 12, 2013, 09:42:58 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/hawaii-senate-passes-gay-marriage-bill-225752529.html
Hawaii Senate passes gay marriage bill
11/12/13

HONOLULU (AP) — The state Senate passed a bill Tuesday legalizing gay marriage, putting Hawaii a signature away from becoming a same-sex wedding destination.

Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who called lawmakers to a special session for the bill and has vocally supported gay marriage, said in a statement that he will sign the measure. It will allow thousands of gay couples living in Hawaii and even more tourists to marry in the state starting Dec. 2.

"I look forward to signing this significant piece of legislation, which provides marriage equity and fully recognizes and protects religious freedoms," Abercrombie said.

The governor's office later announced Abercrombie will sign the bill Wednesday morning in an invitation-only ceremony at the Hawaii Convention Center.

President Barack Obama praised the bill's passage, saying the affirmation of freedom and equality makes the country stronger.

"I've always been proud to have been born in Hawaii, and today's vote makes me even prouder," Obama said.

Senators passed the bill 19-4 with two lawmakers excused. Cheers erupted inside and outside the gallery when the vote was taken, with a smattering of boos. Senate President Donna Mercado Kim, who voted against the bill, banged her gavel and told members of the public to quiet down.

More than half the chamber's lawmakers spoke in support of the bill, with many urging the public to come together to heal divisions within the community.

"This is nothing more than the expansion of aloha in Hawaii," said Sen. J. Kalani English, a Democrat from Maui.

Sen. Sam Slom, the chamber's only Republican, said the government should stay out of legislating marriage.

"People have differences, and you can't legislate morality. You can try, but you can't do it," Slom said before voting against the bill.

Rep. Bob McDermott, a House lawmaker who filed a lawsuit to try to derail the special session, promised a new challenge once Abercrombie signs the bill. A judge said he would take the case only after the law fully passes.

An estimate from a University of Hawaii researcher says gay marriage will boost tourism by $217 million over the next three years, as Hawaii becomes an outlet for couples in other states, bringing ceremonies, receptions and honeymoons to the islands. The study's author has said Hawaii would benefit from pent-up demand for gay weddings, with couples spending $166 million over those three years on ceremonies and honeymoons.

The Senate had to take up the bill a second time because of changes made in the House, where the bill was amended and eventually passed.

The House amendments delayed the date ceremonies could begin, slightly expanded an exemption for clergy and religious organizations, and removed regulations determining how children of same-sex couples could qualify for Native Hawaiian benefits.

Sen. Clayton Hee, who steered the bill's passage in the chamber, said the measure was good even though he believes the religious protections granted are too broad. He said the final bill was a good compromise.

"It is landmark legislation, the weight of which is on the freedom to marry," Hee said. "The give was broader religious decision-making."

The measure is the culmination of more than two decades of debate in the state, where two women in 1990 famously applied for a marriage license, touching off a court battle and eventual national discussion on gay marriage.

The case led to Congress passing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, part of which was struck down earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision that legally married same-sex couples could qualify for federal benefits led Abercrombie to call the special session in Hawaii.

The Senate vote puts Hawaii alongside Illinois, where a bill legalizing gay marriage is also awaiting the governor's signature. Another 14 states and the District of Columbia already allow same-sex marriage.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 14, 2013, 10:19:19 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/hawaii-judge-refuses-block-same-sex-marriage-law-015855552.html
11/14/13
Hawaii judge refuses to block new same-sex marriage law

HONOLULU (Reuters) - Opponents of Hawaii's new gay marriage law failed in their bid to block implementation of the measure on Thursday when a judge refused to grant a court order preventing marriage licenses from being issued to same-sex couples beginning next month.

The new law, which cleared the Democratic-controlled Legislature on Tuesday and was signed on Wednesday by Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie, paves the way for gay and lesbian couples to be legally wed in Hawaii starting on December 2.

A Republican legislator and others opposed to the marriage equality law filed a court challenge even before it was passed, seeking a restraining order that would keep it from taking effect.

Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto in Honolulu had refused to even consider the opponents' motion until the law was enacted, and on Thursday, following an hour of oral arguments from both sides, he denied the request for an injunction.

"After all the legal complexities of the court's analysis, the court will conclude that same-sex marriage in Hawaii is legal," Sakamoto said.

The new law made Hawaii the 15th U.S. state to legalize nuptials for gay and lesbian couples, rolling back a 1994 statute that defined marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

Republican Bob McDermott, a member of Hawaii's House of Representatives leading the effort to block the measure, said it conflicts with a 1998 voter-passed constitutional amendment vesting the state Legislature with authority to limit marriages to heterosexual couples.

One of six House Republicans to vote against the gay marriage bill last week, McDermott cited ballot information circulated at the time of 1998 amendment explaining that its passage would empower legislators to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples "only."

Therefore, McDermott argued, that was the intent of voters who approved it, and that was how the court should interpret it, despite the fact that word "only" did not appear in the ballot question itself, nor in the amendment as enacted.

Attorney Jack Dwyer, who represented gay marriage opponents in court, told Reuters after the hearing that difference between the ballot information and the ballot question itself amounted to a "bait and switch."

The state attorney general's office countered there was nothing in the constitutional amendment precluding legislators from extending marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The state further argued that seeking to interpret the amendment based on misleading pre-election information amounted to trying to rewrite the state constitution to suit opponents' preferences.

The judge found that the wording of the amendment was unambiguous in giving the Legislature discretion to legalize gay marriage.

Moreover, he said the state constitution grants lawmakers broad powers to legislate on domestic relations, including matrimony, said Anne Lopez, a special assistant to Attorney General David Louie.

Dwyer said gay marriage opponents have not decided whether to press ahead with their case.

(Reporting by Treena Shapiro in Honolulu Writing and additional reporting from Los Angeles By Steve Gorman; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Eric Walsh)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 19, 2013, 09:47:08 pm
Missouri to allow joint tax returns for legally married same-sex couples
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/missouri-to-allow-joint-tax-returns-for-legally-married-same/article_0f654615-7491-5dcf-9d72-e0576b182c81.html
11/14/13

JEFFERSON CITY • Same-sex couples who are legally married in other states can now file joint state tax returns in Missouri, Gov. Jay Nixon said Thursday.

Nixon said he was making the change because state tax law is linked to federal tax law.

After the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the Defense of Marriage Act in June, the IRS ruled that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for federal tax purposes, no matter where they live.

At a news conference in his Capitol office, Nixon told reporters he will issue an executive order today telling the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept the couples’ joint state returns if they file joint federal returns.

In 2004, Missouri voters passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

This is not about the definition of marriage,” Nixon said. “This is about the structure of the tax code.”

Nixon’s position drew a quick rebuke from House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka. The speaker said Nixon, a Democrat, was trying to violate voters’ will to satisfy his liberal allies.

“The governor’s job is to defend our state’s constitution — including the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman that was passed overwhelmingly in this state — not to surrender to the whims of the Obama administration,” Jones said in a statement.

PROMO, a group that lobbies for gay rights in Missouri, praised Nixon’s move.

“We applaud the governor for giving clarity to same-sex couples and providing guidance on how we complete tax return information in the state of Missouri,” said A.J. Bockelman, PROMO’s executive director.

Among the states that do not recognize same-sex marriages, Missouri is the only one allowing the couples to file joint returns, according to the advocacy group.

“This is a great sign. We’re very excited about it,” said Robin Maril, attorney for the Human Rights Campaign in Washington. “As Gov. Nixon points out (in his remarks), this is the only appropriate course of action.”

Nixon noted that state tax liability is calculated based on the adjusted gross income figure that taxpayers use on their federal tax return.

“It’s pretty simple. If you jointly file with the IRS, you jointly file with the state Department of Revenue,” he said.

Nixon said at the news conference that legally married same-sex couples would be able to use any state tax breaks that are reserved for married couples. But his office later retracted that statement, saying that while federal exemptions for couples would be reflected in their federal adjusted gross income, state-level exemptions, deductions and credits would not apply.

Bockelman said it was good to see Missouri out front on a gay rights issue. He hopes it will ultimately move the state toward legalizing same-sex marriage, something 15 other states and the District of Columbia have done. Illinois will soon be the 16th.

Illinois legislators have approved same-sex marriage and Gov. Pat Quinn has announced he will sign the legislation on Wednesday. It’s expected to go into effect June 1.

While emphasizing that his executive order dealt only with tax filing status, Nixon said he would like to see state voters take another look at recognizing same-sex marriage.

“Many Missourians, including myself, are thinking about these issues of equality in new ways and reflecting on what constitutes discrimination. To me, that process has led to the belief that we shouldn’t treat folks differently just because of who they are,” Nixon said.

“I think if folks want to get married, they should be able to get married,” he said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on November 27, 2013, 06:14:11 am
More homosexual 'marriages' does not more marriages make


A family leader says although gay "marriages" may increase, Christians must realize that homosexual "marriage" is a false union.

According to the California Department of Public Health, more than 30,000 homosexual couples married in July, up 15 percent from last year. More Californians were married following a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that paved the way for gay marriages in the state.
 
"Even if the numbers do increase, for Christians, the reality is this is not marriage," says Pater LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.
 
"It has nothing to do with our Judeo-Christian tradition," he adds, "so this is not marriage and we cannot pretend that this is marriage."
 
"Obviously the homosexual lobby wants to fluff up the numbers as big as they can to show that there are so many millions of people supposedly seeking same-sex 'marriages,' so called," LaBarbera tells OneNewsNow.
 
In 2008, almost 30,000 couples were married after gay marriages were allowed for a short window in the state.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against proponents of California's one man, one woman marriage law and said Proposition 8 proponents lacked legal standing to defend it.
 
 - See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/11/27/more-homosexual-marriages-does-not-more-marriages-make#sthash.gYque87m.dpuf


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 01, 2013, 04:49:31 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/states-gays-fight-divorce-050413575.html
In some states, gays fight for right to divorce
12/1/13

"It's humiliating to know that you spend that money, that time to be in a committed relationship and for it to end. I mean, that hurts. But then to be in a state that doesn't recognize you as a human being, or recognize you for who you are, for who you love, it's hard," Czekala-Chatham said during an interview at her current home in Hernando. "I'm not treated like the neighbors next door. I'm treated like a second-class citizen."

She has plenty of company among gay and lesbian couples in other conservative states, although thus far only a few have pursued divorce cases in the courts.

Even as the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage will soon grow to 16, most states — like Mississippi — refuse to recognize such unions or to help dissolve them. Gay couples who move to those states after marrying elsewhere face roadblocks if they wish to divorce, as do couples from those states who make a brief foray out-of-state to get married.

Often, such couples in non-recognition states would have to move back to the state where they were married and establish residency in order to get divorced — an option that can be unworkable in many cases.

"The idea you can't go to your local courthouse and file for divorce is very disruptive," said Peter Zupcofska, a Boston lawyer who has represented many gay and lesbian clients in marriage and divorce cases. "It's an enormous waste of effort and time."

The right to divorce isn't as upbeat a topic as the right to marry, but gay-rights lawyers and activists say it's equally important.

"The marriage system is a way we recognize and protect the commitments people make to their partner," said James Esseks, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Part of that system is creating a predictable, regularized way of dealing with the reality that relationships sometimes end," he said. "Those are the times people are the worst to each other, and that's why we have divorce courts. There's got to be an adult in the room."

On a recent evening, in the one-story brick house she shares with her two children, a new girlfriend and several pets, Czekala-Chatham sat on the edge of a leather recliner, shaking her head.

"Why should I be treated differently, you know?" she said. "When the courthouse is a few blocks from here, I should be able to walk up there and get married. I should also be able to go up there and get divorced."

She could get a divorce in California, but her lawyer argues that Mississippi wouldn't recognize the divorce and their marital property would remain "in limbo."

Melancon's lawyer, Chad Reeves, filed a motion to dismiss the divorce complaint based on the argument that Mississippi can't grant a divorce for a marriage that it doesn't recognize. However, Reeves told The Associated Press on Friday that the motion was withdrawn after the parties signed an agreement related to division of property and debts.

Reeves said he opposed the divorce because Czekala-Chatham asked for alimony, among other things, but those matters have been settled. He said Melancon will get the house, and won't have to pay alimony. Czekala-Chatham says she doesn't care, she just wants the divorce.

A hearing is scheduled for Monday.

Melancon, who now lives in Arkansas, declined to be interviewed. She said in an email that she wants the divorce, but the "avenues to pursue are vague and expensive." She did not elaborate.

The Mississippi Attorney General's office filed a motion to intervene on Nov. 15 that said the divorce petition should be dismissed.

Mississippi "has no obligation to give effect to California laws that are contrary to Mississippi's expressly stated public policy," the motion argues. "That legitimate policy choice precludes recognition of other States' same sex marriages for any reason, including granting a divorce."

Legal experts say getting Mississippi to recognize the marriage for any purpose is a longshot. Lawmakers amended state law in 1997 to say any same-sex marriage "is prohibited and null and void from the beginning. Any marriage between persons of the same gender that is valid in another jurisdiction does not constitute a legal or valid marriage in Mississippi."

In 2004, 86 percent of Mississippi voters approved an amendment placing a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

In his arguments for a divorce, Czekala-Chatham's lawyer, Wesley Hisaw, cites a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and ordered the U.S. government to recognize legal same-sex marriages. That has created a situation where same-sex couples "are married lawfully under the laws of the United States, but not under Mississippi law," Hisaw contends.

He also argues that bigamous and incestuous marriages are considered "void" in Mississippi, just like same-sex marriages, but bigamy and incest are also grounds for divorce.

"There can be no legitimate state purpose in allowing bigamous or incestuous couples to divorce and not allowing the same remedy to same-sex couples," he wrote.

Right-to-divorce cases have cropped up in some other states with constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. On Nov. 5, the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the state can grant divorces to gay couples married elsewhere.

The plaintiffs are couples from Austin and Dallas who married in Massachusetts and later filed for divorce in Texas. The Austin couple was granted a divorce, but Attorney General Greg Abbott intervened in the Dallas case and won an appeals court decision blocking a divorce.

In the oral arguments, Assistant Attorney General James Blacklock argued there's no way for Texas to grant a divorce because of the constitutional ban.

"There's no marriage here," he said. "So there can be no divorce."

A similar case has just commenced in Kentucky, where two women married in Massachusetts are seeking a divorce.

At least one same-sex couple has been able to get a divorce in a state that doesn't officially recognize same-sex unions. In 2011, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that two women married in Canada could get a divorce in the state, reversing a ruling by a district judge.

While the issue of same-sex divorce has drawn increasing attention, there is little in the way of comprehensive data to help draw comparisons between the divorce rates of gay couples and heterosexual couples.

One of the few large-scale studies addressing the question was conducted by Michael Rosenfeld, a sociology professor at Stanford University. He assessed the breakup rates among about 3,000 couples since 2009, and concluded there was little difference between gay couples and straight couples.

Depending on a couple's circumstances, a host of weighty matters can be affected by the inability to divorce — division of property, child custody, health coverage for a spouse, the ability to get remarried. In some cases, the inability to divorce could mean that an estranged spouse would continue to receive spousal benefits even though the other partner wanted those benefits halted so he or she could move on to a new relationship.

"It's really problematic for people in getting on with their lives, being considered single again," said Kenneth Upton Jr., an attorney in the Dallas office of Lambda Legal, a national gay-rights group.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: tennis shoe on December 01, 2013, 08:17:56 pm
Here’s a picture of the complainant with her new ah…partner.

(http://media.pressherald.com/images/300*249/20131201_8177.xml-Same+Sex+Divorce.JPEG-0ec23.jpg)

I’m sure the executive branch will step in any day now to resolve this issue.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 05, 2013, 05:22:57 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-weighs-merits-utah-39-gay-marriage-ban-000853577.html
12/5/13
Judge weighs merits of Utah's gay marriage ban

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A federal judge should strike down Utah's same-sex marriage ban because the precedent has been set by the U.S. Supreme Court and discrimination has gone on long enough, an attorney for three gay couples challenging the 2004 voter-passed law argued Wednesday.

During a nearly four-hour hearing in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, lawyer Peggy Tomsic contended marriage is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

"This case embodies the civil rights movement of our time," Tomsic said. "This is the time and this is the place for this court to make it clear that the 14th Amendment is alive and well, even in Utah."

About 100 people packed the courtroom in the city that is home to the Mormon Church, known for its efforts in helping California pass its anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby heard arguments from both sides as he weighed what will be a precedent-setting decision that he hopes to make by early next year.

His ruling would be the first on a state same-sex marriage ban since the Supreme Court last summer struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which stipulated that marriage was between a man and woman.

Attorneys for the state asserted it is not the courts' role to determine how a state defines marriage, and that the Supreme Court ruling doesn't give same-sex couples the universal right to marry.

They also reinforced the state's argument that Utah has a right to foster a culture of "responsible procreation," and the "optimal mode of child-rearing," which the state believes the law does.

"There is nothing unusual about what Utah is doing here," said Stanford Purser of the Utah Attorney General's Office, objecting to the notion that the law is rooted in bigotry or hatred. "That's the nature of legislation: You draw lines and make designations."

Though more than 40 similar court challenges to same-sex marriage bans are pending in 22 states, Utah's is among the most closely watched because of the state's history of staunch opposition to gay marriage, said Jon Davidson, director of Lambda Legal, which pursues litigation on a wide range of LGBT issues across the country.

Utah is home to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which believes homosexuality is a sin. The state was among the first to pass a state amendment banning same-sex marriage, Davidson said.

"Utah has a particularly symbolic position in the history of the struggle of same sex couples to be able to marry," Davidson said.

Shelby, who took the bench in September 2012, asked dozens of questions to both attorneys. He said afterward that he had his "hands full" with the case but vowed to do his best to make a ruling by early January.

Much of the hearing focused on the state's premise that the law helps promote procreation. Shelby grilled the state's attorneys on the connection between banning same-sex marriage and the number of babies born to heterosexual couples.

"How is it by excluding same-sex couples from marrying you're increasing procreation?" Shelby asked.

Purser declined to answer directly, saying the issue was irrelevant in this case. Pressed, he said nobody knows yet the effects of same-sex marriage on heterosexual marriage.

Shelby also questioned if having children is essential to a person being able to take advantage of the constitutional right to marriage, proving his point by asking the state attorneys if Utah would consider giving fertilization tests before granting marriage licenses. He also asked how allowing a heterosexual post-menopausal woman to marry was different than allowing a gay or lesbian couple to wed.

Philip Lott of the Utah Attorney General's Office said the state wouldn't give fertilization tests and said a post-menopausal woman may still raise a grandchild or niece or nephew.

Tomsic scoffed at the state's rationale of promoting procreation, saying there is no evidence to suggest banning same-sex marriage has any effect on whether men and women have children. She also took exception to the idea that same-sex couples can't provide stable, loving homes for kids. She said an estimated 3,000 Utah children are being raised by gay and lesbian parents who are suffering because of the state's law.

"These kids every day of their lives are facing a social stigma," Tomsic said. "The harm is immense in this state."

Shelby questioned why harm should be considered in his judgment, and also pointed out that Tomsic's interpretation of the 14th Amendment was overly simplistic. He noted the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage had sections that benefited both sides in the legal challenge.

The judge also asked why he should overturn what nearly two-thirds of Utah voters decided was best for the state nearly a decade ago.

Five of the six people who brought the lawsuit in March attended the hearing.

Tomsic said one of the couples was legally married in Iowa and just wants that license recognized in Utah. She said the couples work and contribute to society and deserve equal rights in the state where they live, no matter how the law came to be.

Utah's law is "based on prejudice and bias that is religiously grounded in this state," Tomsic said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 05, 2013, 05:28:09 pm
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/11/27/couples-challenge-texas-gay-marriage-ban/
11/27/13
Couples Challenge Texas Gay Marriage Ban

AUSTIN (AP) - Two same-sex couples are challenging Texas’ constitutional ban on gay marriage in a San Antonio federal court.

A federal judge could hear arguments as early as January as the case makes headway.

Attorneys for the couples said Wednesday that the Texas ban violates the rights of the couples to get married and enjoy all the legal benefits. They argue a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision suggestions bans on same-sex marriage violate the federal constitution.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has pledged to defend the law, which was approved by voters in 2005.

Another lawsuit by a same-sex couple married outside of Texas has asked the Texas Supreme Court for the right to divorce in Texas.

Sixteen states allow same-sex marriage, along with federal agencies including the Pentagon.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 06, 2013, 12:38:16 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/2013-gay-milestones-182348539.html?vp=1
2013: A Landmark Year For Gay Rights
12/2/13

From twin pro-gay Supreme Court rulings, to the president of the United States referencing "our gay brothers and sisters" in his inaugural address, to the first male pro athlete coming out of the closet, 2013 has been a "banner year" for gay rights.

In no other year has the battle for same-sex marriage — a centerpiece of the gay rights movement — gained so much momentum. A little over 10 years ago, such unions weren't permitted in any state. The majority of Americans were staunchly against gay marriage, according to Pew polls. Globally, not a single country permitted same-sex marriage until the Netherlands in 2000.

Years of campaigning started paying off at warp speed, prompting Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign to call 2013 "the gayest year in gay history." A whopping eight states allowed gay marriage this year, doubling the total count in the nation. Among them was Hawaii, where two women kicked off the same-sex marriage debate in 1990 when they applied for a marriage license. That led to the Bill Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted when gays could not marry in any state.

Nearly 23 years later, a landmark Supreme Court decision on June 26 struck down DOMA, in a 5-4 decision. Gay marriages must be recognized by the federal government for the first time. The ruling stopped short of declaring same-sex marriage bans illegal, although it did clear the way for legally wed gay couples to jointly file their taxes, seek immigration benefits, and qualify for other federal marriage privileges. That same day, the justices made gay marriage legal again in California, the nation's most populous state, by declining to overturn a lower court's ruling. A few months later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex marriage.

"It's been such a banner year, it's been hard to keep up with," Richard Socarides, a gay rights activist and former adviser to Bill Clinton, told Yahoo News. "Acceptance of gays and lesbians as a cultural phenomenon has always led the political acceptance," he added. "2013 was a year where we started to catch up politically [to] where the culture was, and where the American people already were."

A seismic — and generational — shift
The change in public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage is among the most dramatic on any public-policy issue in the past decade. And much of that shift is due to young people, born after 1980, coming of age and bringing with them more liberal attitudes on the subject. Seventy percent of millenials aged 18 to 32 said they support same-sex marriage in a March 2013 Pew poll, almost twice the 38 percent of baby boomers who back it.

That generational disconnect is also visible in some major cultural gay milestones this year. Actress Jodie Foster, 50, and NBA player Jason Collins, 34, both formally came out as gay in 2013 — the Foster at the Golden Globes and Collins in the pages of Sports Illustrated. But among many younger Americans, the idea of being in the "closet" itself is becoming increasingly antiquated. In California, high school students elected the nation's first transgender homecoming queen, and mainstream TV shows like "Glee" have depicted young, openly gay teen characters for years.

Partisan changes
Traditional partisan lines on the issue — with Republicans generally opposing gay marriage and Democrats more likely to support it — are also starting to break down. In November, seven Senate Republicans crossed the aisle to join the entire Democratic caucus in supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will prevent businesses with more than 15 employees from firing workers for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

More than 100 prominent Republicans also urged the finding of a constitutional right to wed in a brief filed with the Supreme Court in February 2013. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) announced he supported gay marriage after finding out that his son is gay, becoming the first nationally elected Republican to do so. In September, former President George H.W. Bush and his wife served as witnesses to a same-sex wedding in Kennebunkport, Maine.

But support for same-sex marriage remains low — less than 30 percent nationwide — among people who identify as Republican, and among people who say they attend church weekly, according to a July 2013 Gallup poll.

The next battlefield
Despite 2013's gay rights victories, same-sex marriage is still illegal in most states, and in many others, employers can fire workers solely for their sexual orientation without risk of repercussions.

Gay rights advocates say that keeping up 2013's momentum next year is crucial. The movement hopes to pass more same-sex marriage laws in New Mexico —the sole state that doesn't explicitly ban or permit the practice — and Oregon. Meanwhile, through a mix of court cases and legislative measures, activists hope to expand the marriage map to Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania in the following election.

Activists also hope to shepherd the Senate's Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which bans employers from discriminating against workers solely for being gay, and which faces an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled House. "The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 07, 2013, 08:11:16 pm
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/05/Gay-weddings-17-percent-of-Washington-marriages
12/5/13
Same-Sex Weddings 17 Percent of Washington Marriages

By DONNA GORDON BLANKINSHIP
 Associated Press
 SEATTLE
 Gay weddings made up 17 percent of marriages in Washington this past year, the first year gay marriages were legal in the state, state officials reported Wednesday.

 About 7,071 same-sex couples got married in Washington between December 6, 2012, and the most recent complete month of data, September 2013. There were 42,408 total marriages in the state during that time, according to the Washington State Department of Health.

 So far, most of Washington state's same-sex marriages, 62 percent, were between two women.

 Washington is one of 15 states plus the District of Columbia where gay marriage is legal, but few have the kind of detailed data Washington released this week, in part because gay marriage is so new in most places.

 According to the 2010 Census, there were about 152,335 same-sex married couples and 440,989 same-sex unmarried couples in the United States.

 According to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, during the first year and a half after gay marriage became legal, 8,181 same-sex couples got married. Between May 2004 and the end of 2012, 22,406 gay couples got married in Massachusetts.

 Both Washington and Massachusetts warn that these numbers are close estimates, but not perfectly accurate, since gender information was not properly entered on every marriage certificate.

 In California, the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute estimated 18,000 gay couples married in 2008 when same-sex marriage was legal for four and a-half months. Those numbers are not based on marriage license information because California, like many states, does not request gender information on license applications.

 One of the main sponsors of the Washington state law that led to gay marriage said the wedding numbers were higher than he expected.

 During the five years before Washington's gay marriage law, when the state had what was affectionately called "everything but marriage," only 9,500 couples registered themselves as domestic partners, including about 950 who were not gay, said state Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle.

 "In terms of the uptake in marriages, that's a remarkable number," he said.

 Pedersen said he was also pleased to be proven right about a few others things: that gay marriage would drive tourism and that there was considerable interest in the institution among couples from across the state.

 All but one of Washington's 39 counties _ Garfield County _ reported same-sex marriages during the first 10 months of the law. The top five counties were King, Clark, Pierce, Snohomish and Thurston counties.

 About a quarter of the gay couples who got married this past year in Washington were from another state. The biggest number, 524, came from Oregon. For 170 marriages, the couples live in Texas and 155 couples traveled from California to get married in Washington.

 In only 6 percent of marriages for opposite-sex couples, both spouses were from another state.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 16, 2013, 09:09:31 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/5-things-know-ruling-utah-bigamy-law-210839653.html
5 things to know about ruling on Utah bigamy law
12/16/13

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A landmark ruling from a federal judge in Utah striking down key parts of the state's polygamy laws handed a legal victory to polygamist families across the state — but the battle might not be over.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah's bigamy law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of religion.

The ruling was cheered by Kody Brown and his four wives, who star in the hit TLC cable TV reality show "Sister Wives," and other fundamentalist Mormons who believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven. The Brown family filed their lawsuit in July 2011 and fled Utah for Las Vegas last year under the threat of prosecution.

Here are five key things to know about the ruling:

DOES THIS MAKE POLYGAMY LEGAL IN UTAH?

The ruling decriminalizes polygamy, but bigamy — holding marriage licenses with multiple partners — is still illegal, said Jonathan Turley, the Browns' Washington, D.C.-based attorney. Utah's law was considered stricter than the laws in 49 other states because of the cohabitation clause. If the ruling stands, Utah's law would be identical to most other states that prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses. In most polygamous families in Utah, the man is legally married to one woman but only "spiritually married" to the others.

WHAT'S NEXT?

The Utah Attorney General's Office could appeal the ruling. Spokesman Paul Murphy said the office plans to thoroughly review it before making a decision, which could take several weeks. The office is being run by an interim attorney general, and a replacement has not yet been selected. "The new attorney general would want to weigh in on this decision," Murphy said. Gov. Gary Herbert says he's "always a little concerned" when the courts make public policy changes, and said his legal counsel would determine the ramifications of the decision. Turley said he's prepared to defend the decision on appeal.

HOW DO POLYGAMISTS FEEL ABOUT THE RULING?

Most of them are thrilled, saying polygamous families in Utah have lived under the threat of arrest for decades and can now come out from the shadows. "Now that we're no longer felons, that's a huge relief," said Anne Wilde of Salt Lake City, co-founder of the polygamy advocacy group Principle Voices. "This decision will hopefully take away the stigma of living a principle that's a strongly held religious belief." There are an estimated 38,000 fundamentalist Mormons who practice or believe in polygamy, most living in Utah and other Western states, said Wilde, who was a plural wife for 33 years until her husband died. In a statement, the Browns said they hope the decision will help others "come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs."

WHAT DO FORMER POLYGAMISTS THINK?

At least one of them, author Kristyn Decker, believes the ruling gives more justification for leaders and members of fundamentalist Mormon groups to continue promoting a lifestyle built on coercion and fear. In 2002, after five decades, Decker left the Apostolic United Brethren, the church to which the Browns belong. "Everyone who believes in polygamy will say, 'See? We're right,'" said Decker, who has written a book about her experience. "I'm concerned that it's just going to justify more of the same that has gone on for years and years unchecked."

DOES THE RULING IMPACT MAINSTREAM MORMONS?

Not likely. The Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came out after the ruling to reiterate that it abandoned polygamy in 1890 and that it strictly prohibits the practice today for its 15 million members worldwide. Polygamy is a legacy of the early teachings of the Mormon church but has no place in modern Mormonism, church officials said in a statement. Practicing polygamists, including Warren Jeffs' sect on the Utah-Arizona border, are offshoots of mainstream Mormonism.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 19, 2013, 11:05:39 am
http://news.yahoo.com/north-dakota-says-man-same-sex-marriage-may-233235900.html
12/18/13
North Dakota says man in same-sex marriage may wed woman too

Reuters) - A man already married to another man in a state that permits same-sex marriage could wed a woman in North Dakota without breaking state laws, the state's top attorney has found.

The finding raises potentially complex issues about Social Security and death benefits, tax exemptions and even possible prosecutions for bigamy or polygamy, said a constitutional law expert.

Those issues are likely to arise more often with 16 states plus the District of Columbia now recognizing same-sex marriage while a majority of states still ban it, said Jeffrey Shaman, a professor at DePaul University's College of Law.

The issue came up when a man giving only his first name called Burleigh County Recorder Debbie Kroshus in September to ask if he could marry a woman in North Dakota if he were already married to a man in another state, she said.

"I didn't ask where this caller was calling from or where he planned on getting a marriage license," Kroshus said in a telephone interview, adding that it was not possible to determine if the man had applied for a marriage license.

The man could not get a divorce in North Dakota because of the state ban on same-sex marriage and he said the man he is married to also lives in a state that does not recognize gay marriage, Kroshus said.

Kroshus asked the state's attorney from Burleigh County to seek the opinion from the attorney general.

North Dakota is among the states that ban same-sex marriage by state law and state constitutional amendment. Since it would not recognize the man's same-sex marriage, he could also marry a woman in North Dakota without breaking state laws, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said in an opinion dated December 12.

Stenehjem also found the man would not be committing a crime in North Dakota if he filled out the application as "single/never married" and declined to discuss whether he could be prosecuted for bigamy in another state if he later moved to a state that recognized same-sex marriage.

Shaman said more and more people will enter into same-sex marriages and move to other states as the recognition of same-sex marriage increases. And same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples, will part ways.

"I think there are going to be more and more of these questions," Shaman said in a telephone interview.

The Supreme Court has found that federal law must recognize same-sex marriage in states where it is legal, but the ruling in June that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act stopped short of requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, Shaman said.

"Although this is pretty extreme in its complexity, situations like these do arise because of the nature of our country," Shaman said. "We are a federation and states have authority to enact laws as they see fit."

Stenehjem referenced a part of the Defense of Marriage Act that says states need not recognize a same-sex marriage formed in another state in finding that a marriage license could be issued even if the same-sex marriage was not dissolved.

The state attorney general's opinion came a day before a U.S. federal judge struck down a portion of Utah's bigamy law governing cohabitation as unconstitutional, saying it bars consenting adults from living together and criminalizes their intimate sexual relationships.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 19, 2013, 01:09:23 pm
http://www.abqjournal.com/323346/abqnewsseeker/nm-supreme-court-affirms-same-sex-marriage-right.html
12/19/13
NM Supreme Court affirms same-sex marriage rights

The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of same-sex couples, granting them all the same rights of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

The court’s 31-page opinion states, in part, that: “All rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples.”

New Mexico joins 16 other states, the District of Columbia, and several Native American tribes in recognizing same-sex unions.

After eight of the state’s 33 counties began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples earlier this year, county officials petitioned the court to provide a state-wide ruling.

The court ruled that county clerks must issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender, and that licenses issued to same-sex couples prior to the ruling must be recognized. More than 1,400 same-sex couples have been issued marriage licenses in New Mexico since August.

ACLU-New Mexico’s Legal Director Laura Schauer Ives said in a release, “As a state, we have always strived to treat all families with dignity and respect, and today’s decision allowing loving, committed same sex couples to marry continues that tradition. The more than 1000 same-sex couples who have already married in New Mexico can now rest certain knowing their marriages will be recognized and respected by our state.”

Keep with ABQJournal.com for updates.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on December 19, 2013, 01:34:11 pm
Court's decision to declare same-sex marriage legal in New Mexico is unanimous - @NBCNews


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on December 20, 2013, 03:31:21 pm
Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
 
"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."

Shelby’s ruling came just 16 days after he heard arguments in the case and well before his self-imposed deadline to render a decision by Jan. 7, when the next hearing in the matter was to be held.
 
"It feels unreal," said Moudi Sbeity, who with his partner Derek L. Kitchen were plaintiffs in the case. "I’m just very thrilled that Derek and I will be able to get married soon, if all goes well and the state doesn’t appeal. We want a farmer’s market wedding because it’s where we spend a lot of time."

The two make and sell Mediterranean-style spreads at farmer’s markets throughout Utah. Sbeity said he and Kitchen, both 25, had just heard the news from their attorney. Kitchen "just has a very large smile on his face," Sbeity said.
 
The other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Karen Archer and Kate Call and Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge. Archer and Call already have a marriage license issued in Iowa, but joined the lawsuit to protest that their legal marriage was not recognized in Utah.
 
Shelby said that while he agreed with Utah that marriage has traditionally been left to regulation by the states, such laws must comply with the Constitution.
 
"The issue the court must address in this case is not who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah’s current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution," the judge said.
 
Shelby acknowledged the politically charged climate that surrounds the issue and said that was particularly true in Utah, where 66 percent of voters approved the amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004.
 
"It is only under exceptional circumstances that a court interferes with such action," Shelby said. "But the legal issues presented in this lawsuit do not depend on whether Utah’s laws were the result of its legislature or a referendum, or whether the laws passed by the widest or smallest of margins."

ie: the will of the voters to determine their own destiny does not outway the sodomite agenda
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57291925-78/ban-judge-sex-court.html.csp?utm_source=twitterfeed


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 20, 2013, 04:33:18 pm
The rate is getting faster now...


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 31, 2013, 10:19:27 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gay-couples-sue-over-kansas-194026549.html
Gay couples sue over Kansas tax filing policy

2 married gay couples sue to overturn Kansas policy preventing filing of joint tax returns

12/31/13

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Two married gay couples in Kansas are suing to overturn a state policy preventing them from filing joint state income tax returns, arguing that the requirement is discriminatory and puts the couples "in second-tier" unions.

But the attorney representing the two couples said Tuesday that the lawsuit in Shawnee County District Court is not a broad attack on the refusal by Kansas to recognize same-sex marriages that are legally granted in other states. The Kansas Constitution says that the state can recognize only marriages between one man and one woman.

The lawsuit, filed Monday, alleges that the state Department of Revenue is violating state tax laws that tie the Kansas income tax code to the federal code, noting that the Internal Revenue Service recognizes unions from states in which gay marriage is legal, allowing joint filing. The lawsuit also says the state agency exceeded its authority by imposing what amounts to a new regulation without first seeking public comment or standard legal reviews.

The Department of Revenue issued a notice in October, "Guidance for Same-Sex Couples," spelling out the policy. It requires each person to file either as an individual or head of household. The lawsuit seeks a court injunction blocking the department from enforcing the policy and a ruling that the policy is discriminatory.

"Our lawsuit is specifically limited to the actions of the Department of Revenue," Brown said.

Filing the lawsuit were Michael Nelson and Charles Dedmon of Alma and Roberta and Julia Woodrick of Lawrence. Both couples were married in California.

Equality Kansas, the state's leading-gay rights organization, praised the lawsuit, saying the department had singled out married gay and lesbian couples for "unfair and illegal treatment."

"By requiring legally married same-sex couples to file additional tax forms and say they are not married on those tax forms, Kansas is penalizing and stigmatizing gay and lesbian Kansans," said Tom Witt, the group's executive director.

Department of Revenue spokeswoman Jeannine Koranda said in an email that the agency's notice follows the state constitution and Kansas law and, "Several other states that do not recognize same-sex marriage have published similar guidance."

The agency declined to comment further, saying it had not been formally served a copy of the lawsuit, which names the department and Secretary Nick Jordan as defendants.

According to gay-rights advocates in Missouri, that state is the first to accept joint income tax returns from gay couples who were married elsewhere even though Missouri does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on January 01, 2014, 02:30:56 am
Quote
A federal judge in Utah

Notice how all these federal judges are ruling in favor of the federal government? The feds are on a heck of a winning streak in the courts. And if the federal courts keep ruling against the states, some are going to start thinking of a previous time the feds were acting like this.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 10, 2014, 12:42:13 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/feds-recognize-same-sex-couples-utah-165759063.html
Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah
1/10/14

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Obama administration extended federal recognition to the marriages of more than 1,000 same-sex couples in Utah that took place before the Supreme Court put those unions in the state on hold.

The action will enable the government to extend eligibility for federal benefits to these couples. That means gay and lesbian couples can file federal taxes jointly, get Social Security benefits for spouses and request legal immigration status for partners.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their benefits while courts decide the issue of same-sex marriage in Utah.

The decision came days after Utah officials said they would not recognize the marriages. The office of Gov. Gary Herbert told state agencies this week to put a freeze on proceeding with any new benefits for the newly married gay and lesbian couples until the courts sort out the matter.

Neither Herbert nor Attorney General Sean Reyes had immediate comment on Holder's announcement.

More than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples took home marriage licenses from local clerks after a federal judge overturned Utah's same-sex marriage ban on Dec. 20. Utah voters approved the ban in 2004.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court put a halt to same-sex marriages in Utah while the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers the long-term question of whether gay couples have a right to marry in Utah.

State agencies aren't supposed to revoke anything already issued, such as a marriage certificate or a driver's license with a new name, but they are prohibited from approving any new marriages or benefits. State officials said the validity of the marriages will ultimately be decided by the appeals court.

Holder's declaration marked the latest chapter in the legal battle over same-sex marriage in Utah that has sent couples and state officials on a helter-skelter wave of emotions over the last three weeks.

Federal government agencies have previously confirmed that same-sex couples in other states are entitled to federal benefits, but this is the first time Holder has come out publicly and issued this kind of guidance, said Douglas NeJaime, a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine.

"Symbolically, it's an important step that the federal; government has taken," NeJaime said.

But it's not surprising, he said. The federal government has been making clear for several years that same-sex marriages should be honored.

"The fed government has been pushing up against the states that do not recognize same-sex marriages already," NeJaime said. "This is another step in that direction."

Holder said in a video on the Justice Department's website that the government will coordinate among agencies in the coming days to make sure Utah couples get the federal benefits they are entitled to.

The attorney general said that "for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages."

Holder's declaration was greeted with applause among same-sex couples in Utah.

"It gives me hope moving forward in the appeals process," Moudi Sbeity said. "It shows that there really is a social and cultural shift in viewpoints and mindsets toward marriage equality."

Sbeity and partner Derek Kitchen are among three couples who brought the Utah lawsuit that led to the surprise Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, who said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violated gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

Sbeity said he hopes Holder's declaration will persuade Herbert to shift the state's position. "I'm sure he doesn't want 1,300 lawsuits on his desk," Sbeity said.

Several hundred same-sex marriage supporters were planning a rally at the Utah State Capitol on Friday afternoon. Organizers planned to deliver a petition to the governor and state attorney general asking them to let the federal judge's ruling stand and allow gay marriages to continue.

Tim Wagner of Salt Lake City, one of the organizers of the rally said Holder's announcement was "pretty amazing" and a great thing for the newly married couples.

"It sounds like our national attorney general actually sees the law in the way it should be acknowledged," Wagner said. "The law is on the side of rights and the people who want to love the people they love."

On Thursday, the Utah attorney general issued legal advice to local clerks, advising them to finish paperwork for same-sex marriages completed before the Supreme Court issued a temporary halt.

Reyes' new advice was issued to clear up some confusion and only applies to marriages that were solemnized, said his spokeswoman, Missy Larsen.

"As long as the marital ceremony happened prior to the stay, then the marriage can receive documentation," Larsen said.

The attorney general's office said Thursday's guidance was not a decision on whether the marriages are valid.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 14, 2014, 09:55:18 pm
http://news.msn.com/us/judge-strikes-down-okla-same-sex-marriage-ban
Judge strikes down Okla. same-sex marriage ban
1/14/14

A federal judge struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban, but the ruling was stayed pending an appeal, meaning there will be no gay marriages for now.

TULSA, Okla.  — A federal judge struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban Tuesday, but headed off any rush to the altar by setting aside his order while state and local officials complete an appeal.

It was the second time in a month that a federal judge has set aside a deeply conservative state's limits on same-sex marriage, after Utah's ban was reversed in December.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern described Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."

The ruling drew criticism from the governor, attorney general and other elected officials in this state known as the buckle of the Bible BeltChurchianity. A state lawmaker who once said gay people posed a greater threat to the nation than terrorism blasted rulings from "activist judges."

Kern said the ban is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause because it precludes same-sex couples from receiving an Oklahoma marriage license. In his 68-page ruling, Kern frequently referenced U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued last summer on gay marriage. He also took a shot at Oklahoma's high divorce rate, noting that "excluding same-sex couples from marriage has done little to keep Oklahoma families together thus far."

**This is what Churchianity has badly overlooked - no-fault divorce.

"Exclusion of just one class of citizens from receiving a marriage license based upon the perceived 'threat' they pose to the marital institution is, at bottom, an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority's disapproval of the defined class," Kern wrote. "It is also insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships."

Republican Gov. Mary Fallin issued a written statement accusing Kern of undermining the will of Oklahoma voters who passed the gay marriage ban by a 3-1 margin in 2004.

"The people of Oklahoma have spoken on this issue. I support the right of Oklahoma's voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters. I am disappointed in the judge's ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government," the statement said.

Attorney General Scott Pruitt said the Supreme Court had left it to the states to define marriage and that Kern's ruling was "troubling." He said it would likely take another Supreme Court decision to resolve the matter.

Not including Utah and Oklahoma, 27 states still have constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage. Four more — Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wyoming — do not permit it through state laws.

For 17 days, Utah was the 18th state to allow gay couples to wed, after a federal judge there overturned the state's same-sex marriage ban. Hundreds of couples got married before the Supreme Court put a halt to the weddings earlier this month by granting the state a stay on a federal judge's ruling that two other courts previously denied.

The fate of gay marriage in Utah now rests in the hands of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver — the same circuit as Oklahoma.

In both causes, federal judges said the states' gay marriage laws violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

"Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed," Kern wrote. "It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights."

Tulsa couple Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, who work at the Tulsa World newspaper, filed the Oklahoma lawsuit along with another same-sex couple in November 2004, shortly after voters approved the constitutional amendment. Their case was the longest-running challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, according to the national gay marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry.

"There's so much emotion, I'm kind of crying right now," Bishop said Tuesday. "It's overwhelming to think that we finally won.

"Sharon and I want to get married here in Oklahoma. We've been together for more than 17 years — it's time. This is something that when I was young, I thought I'd never see in my lifetime."

Tulsa County Court Clerk Sally Howe Smith said there was no way under Oklahoma law for her to give the couple a marriage license. "That's how I became a defendant in the case," she said.

In 2006, the Tulsa couples' case made its way to the 10th Circuit after the district court denied the governor of Oklahoma and the state attorney general's motion to dismiss the case. The appeals court ruled in 2009 that the couple lacked standing, so the two couples filed an amended complaint removing the governor and attorney general and adding Smith.

"The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships for many years," Kern wrote. "They own property together, wish to retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another, and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 15, 2014, 09:52:34 pm
http://www.wlns.com/story/24464842/us-judge-hears-challenge-to-mich-gay-marriage-ban
US Judge Hears Challenge To Mich. Gay Marriage Ban
1/15/14

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - A federal judge is considering a U.S. constitutional challenge to a voter-approved 2004 amendment to the Michigan Constitution that ban's same sex marriages.

Similar challenges are working their way through courts around the country.

In less than a month, federal judges in Oklahoma and Utah have struck down state bans on gay marriage for the same reason, concluding that they violate the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal treatment under the law.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman in Detroit said in October that he needed to hear from experts on Feb. 25 before settling the fate of the Michigan Constitution's clause that recognizes marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

He's acting in a lawsuit brought by Detroit-area nurses Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, who seek to marry.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 18, 2014, 10:21:17 am
Looks like legalizing sodomy marriage coming to Texas pretty soon...

http://news.yahoo.com/houston-mayor-weds-longtime-partner-california-030319830.html
Houston mayor weds longtime partner in California
1/17/14

HOUSTON (AP) — Houston Mayor Annise Parker has married longtime partner Kathy Hubbard in a sunset ceremony at a private residence in Palm Springs, Calif., Parker's office announced.

A small group of family and friends, including Parker's mother and Hubbard's sister, attended the service Thursday.

The ceremony was performed by the Rev. Paul Fromberg, rector of St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco. The couple chose Thursday for their wedding because it was the 23rd anniversary of the beginning of their relationship.

**the number 23 is a high level occult number, FYI.

"This is a very happy day for us," Parker said in her statement. "We have had to wait a very long time to formalize our commitment to each other. Kathy has been by my side for more than two decades, helping to raise a family, nurture my political career and all of the other ups and downs and life events that come with a committed relationship. She is the love of my life, and I can't wait to spend the rest of my life married to her."

Fromberg is a gay priest who had been rector of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Houston before leaving for San Francisco.

Parker's election in 2009 made Houston the largest U.S. city with an openly gay mayor. While California allows gay people to marry, Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages.

According to the mayor's statement, Hubbard will avail herself of other insurance options "and will, therefore, not participate in the new policy granting city health insurance benefits to spouses of legally married city employees."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 19, 2014, 02:07:55 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/va-quickly-emerging-key-gay-marriage-fight-163032099.html
Va. quickly emerging as key in gay marriage fight
1/19/14

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Almost overnight, Virginia has emerged as a critical state in the nationwide fight to grant gay men and women the right to wed.

This purple state was once perceived as unfriendly and even bordering on hostile to gay rights. That's changed after a seismic political shift in the top three elected offices, from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats who support gay marriage.

Two federal lawsuits challenging the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage are moving forward, and a hearing on one of the cases is scheduled for Jan. 30.

With the recent court gains in Utah and Oklahoma, gay rights advocates are heartened by the new mood in Virginia. Symbolically as well, they say, the challenges of the state's gay marriage ban resonate because of the founding state's history of erecting a wall between church and state and a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Virginia couple and a past taboo: interracial marriage.

"Virginia is one of several important battlefronts where we have the opportunity now to build on the momentum, embrace the public's movement in favor of the freedom to marry and end the discrimination," said Evan Wolfson, founder and president of New York-based Freedom to Marry, which seeks to have same-sex marriage bans struck down nationwide.

With the election of Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark Herring, the state made a hairpin turn away from the socially conservative officeholders they succeeded, particularly Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, an activist on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Herring had campaigned, in part, on marriage equality, and McAuliffe issued an executive order on inauguration day prohibiting discrimination against state employees who are gay.

Democratic legislators, still widely outnumbered in the House of Delegates, have also been emboldened by the shift away from a reliably conservative state. They took immediate aim at the state's ban on gay marriage, but proposed constitutional amendments face a long road. The earliest voters could see a proposed amendment is in 2016.

The separate lawsuits intended to topple the constitutional ban on gay rights have been filed in federal courts, which are typically speedy in Virginia. The issue could ultimately be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

One lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisonburg, involves two couples from the Shenandoah Valley who claim the state's ban on gay marriage violates the Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses. The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal are representing the plaintiffs.

Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, said Virginia's "intriguing" history on marriage rights played a role in filing the challenge here. A 1967 Supreme Court decision involving a Virginia couple invalidated laws on miscegenation, or interracial marriage .

The case involved Mildred and Richard Loving. The interracial couple had been living in Virginia when police raided their home in 1958 and charged them with violating the state's Racial Integrity law. They had been married in Washington, D.C.

The Lovings were convicted before ultimately prevailing before the Supreme Court.

"The narrative in Virginia of how marriage plays into Virginia history, why the state was so important nationally for our struggle, is a very significant one," Taylor said.

The other lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Norfolk on similar constitutional claims. The legal costs in that case are being paid for by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was behind the effort to overturn California's gay marriage ban.

David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, the high-profile legal tandem that brought down California's prohibition on same-sex marriage, lead the legal team in that challenge. Both cited Virginia's history when they announced their challenge.

"This case is about state laws that violate personal freedoms, are unnecessary government intrusions, and cause serious harm to loving gay and lesbian couples," Olson said. "As a Virginian and a conservative, I believe these laws stand against the very principles of our nation's founding."

Boies compared their challenge of the state's gay marriage ban to the Loving case.

"Virginia gave us the first marriage equality case — and the one that most clearly established that the right to marry the person you love is a fundamental right of all Americans," Boies said. "It's fitting, then, that Virginia be the battleground for another great test of that principal."

Virginia voters approved the same-sex marriage ban 57 percent to 43 percent in 2006.

A Quinnipiac University poll in July found that 50 percent of registered Virginia voters support same-sex marriage, while 43 percent oppose it. The survey's margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

"Their hearts and minds have changed," Wolfson said of Virginians. "That's exactly why it should not be in the Constitution."

The lawsuit puts Herring's office in the position of arguing against a right he championed on the campaign trail. A spokeswoman said "he's reviewing appropriate legal options."

Victoria Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia, said she is concerned about the recent court decisions on gay marriage and Herring's recalcitrance.

"I'd like to see the attorney general, as the person elected to defend our laws, give a staunch defense of it," she said. "That's what the top attorney should be doing ."

The judges presiding in the Harrisonburg and Norfolk challenges are appointees of President Barack Obama.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on January 20, 2014, 03:31:18 am
Quote
A Quinnipiac University poll in July found that 50 percent of registered Virginia voters support same-sex marriage, while 43 percent oppose it. The survey's margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

I don't believe these "polls" they put out, especially since they use the same polling all the time. Less than 50% in Virginia oppose same-sex marriage? Don't believe it. Not in that area of the country. We are talking hard core southern "Christians" in that area.

Quote
The judges presiding in the Harrisonburg and Norfolk challenges are appointees of President Barack Obama

That doesn't bode well.

And this is another example of why the president has no business "appointing" judges of any kind. No way should an elected politician appoint judges. The legal system should do the appointing from within to avoid political parties from manipulating the legal system like they have been doing. In theory, it shouldn't matter who appointed a judge, but we all know the fact is it does matter, a lot.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 24, 2014, 11:54:58 am
For Virginia attorney general, gay marriage fight is just the latest challenge
1/24/14
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/24/22416128-for-virginia-attorney-general-gay-marriage-fight-is-just-the-latest-challenge?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

He hasn't even been attorney general for two weeks, and he is already picking a battle that could have repercussions for marriage equality throughout the South.

But Democrat Mark R. Herring, who started in his new post as Virginia's attorney general on Jan. 11, is no stranger to challenges — especially ones that change the political DNA of his state.

Even securing his seat as attorney general was trying: He won a razor-thin election against his Republican challenger in November, marking the first time Democrats swept the top positions on the ballot in the state since 1969.

His latest fight comes in the form of supporting gay rights — something he had previously voted against.

On Thursday, Herring announced he had reviewed the state's ban on same-sex unions, and concluded that the ban was unconstitutional. He said he would support gay couples who have filed lawsuits challenging the ban — and if he wins his fight, he will make Virginia the first state in the old Confederacy to allow gay marriage.

Currently, only Washington, D.C., and 17 states allow gay marriage, most of which are in the Northeast.

"After a very careful and thorough analysis, I believe Virginia's ban on marriage between same-sex couples violates the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, and as attorney general, I cannot and will not defend laws that violate Virginian's rights," Herring told NPR's "Morning Edition" in an interview that aired Thursday.

Herring's predecessor, Republican Ken Cuccinelli, had been vocal in his opposition to gay marriage. While Herring himself had voted in favor of the ban on same-sex marriage in 2006 when he was a state senator, he says his view have evolved since then.

"I saw very soon after that how that hurt a lot of people and it was very painful for a lot of people," he told NPR.

Before he was elected to serve as attorney general, Herring, 52, was a state senator for eight years, representing parts of Loudoun and Fairfax counties. Prior to that, Herring, who was born in Johnson City, Tenn., but has lived most of his life in Virginia, was a lawyer in Leesburg, Va., and then began his public service career in 1999 as a member of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors.

He embodied an open-government mentality as a state senator. Some of his most lauded achievements protected the most vulnerable of his constituents: He led efforts to protect kids by cracking down on synthetic drugs, and promoted legislation to target scammers who committed financial crimes against seniors. He also was a member of an advisory board that strengthened penalties for domestic violence.

While job creation, transportation improvements and education have always been central themes to his platforms, in running for attorney general, he also campaigned in part on marriage equality.

Family has always been important to the father of two: daughter Peyton, 21, and son Tim, 17. Last August, he told the Roanoke Times that part of why he changed his views on gay marriage was because he "talked to my family, and I have seen how I would not want the state to tell my son or my daughter who they can and cannot marry."

In a campaign ad released in September, he told voters, "The moment your kids are born, your mission changes to giving them the best opportunities in life. For me, family is everything."

He and his wife Laura have been married for 24 years and are members of the Leesburg Presbyterian Church.

Leesburg Presbyterian Church Rev. Deborah Dodson Parsons, who has known Herring for years, described him as a faithful and active church member who is "reserved, maybe even a shy person."


"You know how you think of a politician? He does not wear that on his sleeve. Everyone always comments on that," she said. "He does not work the crowd at all; he is not pushing himself out there. He's the least politician of any politician."

He and his family attends church every Sunday, Parsons said, and are involved in the youth ministry.

"He's a great guy. Very active and very steady and quiet with his participation of the church," she said.

She added that she supported his decision to no longer defend the state's ban on gay marriage in federal lawsuits.

"I think it's a very courageous move on his part," she said.

Herring got a bachelor's degrees in foreign affairs followed by a combined foreign affairs/economics Master's of Arts from the University of Virginia. He graduated from University of Richmond School of Law before he returned to Loudoun for his law practice in Leesburg.

Last November, he was declared winner of the attorney general's race by a mere 165-vote margin over Republican Mark Obenshain, out of more than 2.2 million votes cast. Obenshain asked for a recount; the official recount results showed Herring won by 907 votes.

As attorney general, Herring oversees an office of more than 425 employees. He is not the first attorney general to declare that he believes a state law is violating the Constitution: Last year, then-Attorney General Cuccinelli said his office would not defend one of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's education measures. His analysis concluded that the law, which created a statewide school division to take over local schools that were failing academically, was unconstitutional.

He also isn't the first attorney general to stop defending their state's gay marriage ban, alleging it's unconstitutional. Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane did the same thing last year.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 01, 2014, 11:17:09 am
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-oks-class-action-status-virginia-gay-marriage-162327854--finance.html
Judge OKs class action status in Virginia for gay marriage lawsuit
2/1/14

RICHMOND, Virginia (Reuters) - A federal judge in western Virginia has certified as a class action a lawsuit filed by two Shenandoah Valley couples challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriages.

Friday's order adds to growing momentum to end the state's prohibition of same-sex marriage, with Virginia's new attorney general saying his office will no longer defend the ban.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Urbanski said in the order that same-sex couples seeking to marry in the state as well as those married in states where gay marriage is legal could challenge Virginia's ban as a group.

Lawyers for the couples who filed the lawsuit estimate that there are about 15,000 same-sex households in Virginia, based on U.S. Census data.

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment striking down Virginia's same-sex marriage laws and a permanent injunction barring their enforcement.

At the request of two same-sex couples involved in a parallel lawsuit in federal court in Norfolk, Urbanski's order excludes them from the class action to avoid interfering with their case.

Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, said his decision not to defend the ban was aimed at putting Virginia "on the right side of history" and ending its legacy of opposing landmark civil rights rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Republicans in Virginia's House of Delegates, who have threatened to impeach Herring, are trying to push through a bill that would permit them to hire their own counsel to defend the marriage ban. But even if approved, the bill would probably be vetoed by the Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe.

The Virginia attorney general's decision not to defend the ban follows two Supreme Court rulings last year.

One struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denied federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

The other paved the way for gay marriage to resume in California. But those rulings did not address whether state bans on same-sex marriage were constitutional.

In 2006, 57 percent of Virginians voted in favor of the state's constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriages.

But a poll released last October by Virginia's Christopher Newport University showed that 56 percent of likely voters opposed the ban, and 36 percent favored it.

Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage, including eight states where it became legal in 2013. Thirty-three ban gay couples from marrying by state constitutional amendment, statute or both.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on February 02, 2014, 01:17:59 am
A federal judge just made it open season on Virginia!

So much for "state's rights", especially if your Republican leaning, and the White House is Democrat.

This is clearly and blatantly an open effort by the federal government to bully the states into submission, and now they are using the federal courts to target the states.

But what does the public say?...

Quote
Thirty-three ban gay couples from marrying by state constitutional amendment, statute or both.

Looks like the major portion of the country opposes gay marriage, yet the federal government insists that the public isn't allowed to oppose it. Seems like we have had a turn of the tables on how government is being run in the US, in spite of the Constitution.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 02, 2014, 11:07:51 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-debate-takes-twist-oregon-religious-exemption-121608059.html
Gay-marriage debate takes new twist in Oregon: religious exemption
2/2/14

Reuters) - Oregon voters will likely face two questions about gay marriage when they go to the ballot this year: whether to become the 18th state to let same-sex couples wed, and whether the state should be the first to allow florists, cake makers and others to refuse to participate in these weddings on religious grounds.

The ballot initiatives set up what some activists have said is the next frontier in the marriage debate - as more states move to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples, those who object on religious grounds want a legal right to opt out.

"This is not a sideshow issue," said James Esseks of the American Civil Liberties Union, referring to the Oregon ballot initiative and the coming debate over religious exemption. "This is going to be the issue that we fight about for the next ten years, at least, in the (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights movement."

In Oregon and 20 other states, it is illegal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. The Oregon initiative, which is still awaiting formal approval and could face legal challenges, would create an exemption to that protection.

Several states are considering similar legislation. In South Dakota, a bill was introduced this month that would allow businesses to refuse same-sex wedding-related services.

Teresa Harke, whose group Friends of Religious Freedom proposed Oregon's religious exemption referendum, said that as the marriage debate continues, guarantees are needed to ensure those on both sides of the issue are treated fairly.

"We wanted to make sure that, no matter which way marriage is defined in Oregon, that folks who hold a view based on their faith that marriage is between one man and one woman are not going to be discriminated against or be silenced for declining to participate in same-sex weddings," she said.

Oregon pollster Tim Hibbitts said he expected a close vote on the marriage referendum but had not yet polled the religious exemption question.

'RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE'

Oregon's ballot initiative was inspired by an incident last year when Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery in the Portland suburb of Gresham, refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because of the owners' objections to same-sex marriage.

The couple, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, filed a complaint and, in January, labor investigators ruled the bakery had violated Oregon's nondiscrimination law. Sweet Cakes, which was inundated with angry emails and phone calls, lost a significant amount of business and was forced to relocate.

Cryer and Bowman declined to be interviewed, as did Sweet Cakes' owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein.

"I think it just made everybody realize that there may not be the right protections in place," said Harke.

Similar cases have unfolded across the country. A florist in Washington state, a Colorado bakery and a New Jersey event space have all sited religious objections in refusing to provide service to same-sex wedding and partnership ceremonies.

Last August, New Mexico's highest court ruled an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony amounted to illegal discrimination. The court likened Elane Photography's refusal to a company declining to photograph an interracial wedding.

"They want a special privilege and a special license to discriminate against gay people in business," said Esseks. He called religious exemptions a "Plan B" strategy to "carve out a space where gay people's equality does not affect the way these other folks live their daily lives."

But Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, who represents Elane Photography, said the First Amendment protects the right of people not to endorse messages with which they disagree.

"The right of conscience protects all Americans," he said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on February 03, 2014, 01:58:47 am
Quote
those who object on religious grounds want a legal right to opt out.

And they should have that right. This case is about religious beliefs of those who oppose something. It's not about people being denied a wedding. That's a misdirection and has been the whole time. It's about the right to not be forced to do something you don't believe and oppose.

People won't even know or notice that businesses are refusing service to gay couples it would be such a small percentage of the population.

Quote
They want a special privilege and a special license to discriminate against gay people in business," said Esseks. He called religious exemptions a "Plan B" strategy to "carve out a space where gay people's equality does not affect the way these other folks live their daily lives."

They want nothing of the sort, but these wicked sodomites like to outright lie and cry whoa is me!, while they spit venom at anybody that opposes them.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 03, 2014, 07:40:03 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-couples-challenge-wisconsin-39-gay-marriage-222500540--finance.html
2/3/14
Same-sex couples challenge Wisconsin's gay-marriage ban

MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - Four same-sex couples on Monday asked a federal judge in Wisconsin to overturn the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage, the latest in a series of court challenges aimed at making same-sex marriage legal around the United States.

The couples suing Wisconsin said an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage and civil unions, approved by Wisconsin voters in 2006, unconstitutionally blocks them from federal protections afforded couples in other states.

The lawsuit follows high-profile U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage last year that paved the way for gay marriage to resume in California and struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that denied federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was cited by federal judges overturning bans in Utah and Oklahoma, whose rulings are on appeal. Challenges to bans also are pending in Michigan, Virginia and Florida.

In Wisconsin, the American Civil Liberties Union is representing the four couples who are challenging the state ban in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Madison.

"The state's constitutional marriage ban sends a message that lesbians, gay men and their children are viewed as second-class citizens," the ACLU said in a statement.

The lawsuit names Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a Republican, and other state and local officials as defendants in their official capacity. A representative of the governor could not be reached immediately for comment.

The suit also said Wisconsin statute "discourages" same-sex couples from marrying in another state, referring to a Wisconsin law that threatens nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine for couples that do.

Barely a decade ago, no U.S. states recognized same-sex marriage. Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia now recognize same-sex marriage, including eight states where it became legal in 2013.

Same-sex marriage is legal in neighboring Minnesota and Iowa and legislation making gay marriage legal in Illinois takes effect on June 1, though some marriages have been performed in Illinois on an emergency basis.

Thirty-three states ban gay couples from marrying by state constitutional amendment, statute or both. In Indiana, where gay marriage is banned by statute, lawmakers are considering putting a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before voters in November.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 04, 2014, 11:25:12 am
http://news.yahoo.com/case-challenging-gay-marriage-ban-heard-va-143838261.html
Case challenging gay-marriage ban heard in Va.
2/4/14

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — In a case that could give gay marriage its first foothold in the old Confederacy, a federal judge will hear arguments Tuesday on whether Virginia's ban on gay marriage should be struck down — the position the state's newly elected Democratic attorney general has endorsed, angering many Republican lawmakers.

In January, Attorney General Mark Herring's office notified the federal court in Norfolk that it would not defend the 2006 voter-approved constitutional amendment in a lawsuit. Republicans have accused Herring of abandoning his responsibility to defend the state's laws. On Tuesday morning, a handful of protesters gathered at the courthouse. They shouted phrases decrying his position and carried signs: "Herring's herring. AG's must uphold the law."

Across the street, gay-marriage supporters — in about equal numbers — shouted their support for the plaintiffs and carried signs saying "Marry who you love."

Newly elected Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe has rebuffed calls to appoint outside counsel to defend the ban. On Monday, Republicans in the House passed a bill that would give lawmakers standing in lawsuits where the attorney general and governor have chosen not to participate.

With Herring's office deciding to side with the plaintiffs in the case, the job of defending the law during verbal arguments will fall to the legal team of Norfolk's Circuit Court clerk. In addition, an attorney for the religious group Alliance Defending Freedom will present arguments on behalf of the Prince William County's clerk, which has been allowed to intervene in the case, as to why the law should be upheld.

Herring plans to attend Tuesday's hearing, although Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael will argue in court on behalf of the state.

The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed on behalf of Norfolk couple Timothy Bostic and Tony London, who were denied a marriage license by the Norfolk Circuit Court on July 1. The lawsuit says the state's law denies them liberties that are guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Since then, Chesterfield County couple Carol Schall and Mary Townley have joined the case. The couple were married in California in 2008 and have a teenage daughter. They want Virginia to recognize their marriage.

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal rights are the same ones that successfully challenged California's ban on gay marriage in court there.

After Herring's office decided not to defend the law, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen considered not even hearing verbal arguments in the case because of the "compelling" filing by the attorney general's office. Wright Allen is a former public defender and assistant U.S. attorney who was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.

The lawsuit was filed shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prevented gay couples from receiving a range of federal benefits that are generally available to married people.

Herring's announcement last month came on the heels of court rulings in which federal judges struck down gay-marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma.

Currently 17 states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage. Most are clustered in the Northeast; none is in the former Confederacy.

Nationwide, there are more than a dozen states with federal lawsuits challenging state bans on same-sex marriage.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on February 04, 2014, 01:13:17 pm
Quote
In January, Attorney General Mark Herring's office notified the federal court in Norfolk that it would not defend the 2006 voter-approved constitutional amendment in a lawsuit. Republicans have accused Herring of abandoning his responsibility to defend the state's laws.

And that is the problem before they ever get to reconsidering the law in place. The judicial branch does not have the constitutional authority to set policy. They are tasked with enforcing the law and defending the state. As I understand it, if somebody sues the state, it is the state that has a constitutional obligation defend the state, and that task is the duty of the judicial branch which is the AG office.

The AG office is the legal representative of the state, the defendant in this case. And just who is the state? The official representative of the people, so when the state is being sued, it is the public that is being challenged because they voted in the bill and had their representatives put it in the law.

Added to this is the governor blocking outside council seeing the AG refuses to defend the state. SO, where does the state go to defend itself? It's own lawyer refuses (the AG should be fired for personal bias!), and the governor is refusing them outside legal representation(I have serious legal doubts the governor can do that), so now what? The court clerk has to defend the state's position, using outside Churchianity council?

http://alliancedefendingfreedom.org/about (http://alliancedefendingfreedom.org/about)

Then you have a judge who was appointed by Obama siding with the plaintiffs as well. Talk about rigged!

Also, the challenge is that current law violates the plaintiffs 14th Amendment rights. What, of the US Constitution, or the state's constitution? At issue is the state level VOTER APPROVED constitutional amendment they allege is a violation of rights. Yet check out how they put it in the article...

Quote
the religious group Alliance Defending Freedom will present arguments on behalf of the Prince William County's clerk, which has been allowed to intervene in the case, as to why the law should be upheld.

What? That's not the challenge. That's not how I understand the courts work when a complaint is filed. When somebody sues, they are required to convince the court that they have suffered harm, just like the state has to prove beyond doubt that a person committed a crime. See the difference? There IS a difference in a plaintiff proving their allegations, and a defendant having to prove they aren't guilty.

You don't get to charge somebody in court, saying "You did me wrong!", then sit back and require the defense to prove no harm was committed. The plaintiff MUST present their case. They must prove their own allegations with convincing evidence, and the defense tries to show the plaintiffs are simply wrong.

This whole deal is out of control with people from all sides interjecting personal bias where none should be allowed. In their world, it's about the law and what the majority of people desire what the law should be. The majority spoke, and amended their state constitution, done deal.

The plaintiff should instead seek to get the majority of the public to side with them, and get the state constitution changed, just like the change was done in the first place. But seeing the public majority has already decided what they want, the gay lobby can't stand that, and know full well they won't get the public in that area to side with them, so they resort to legal tactics through the courts where the system has been seeded with socialists that oppose the Constitution and support sodomites.

The residents of Virginia have been scammed by their own "elected"(wink! wink!) officials.  ::)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 05, 2014, 10:20:13 am
Thank you for the insight on this - yeah, the whole game is rigged, and manipulated.

And if anything too, I think the American public is more indifferent than anything else. No, the majority of them don't support sodomy marriage, but it's just that they don't care anymore(and that includes Churchianity too). This is largely b/c they're more concerned with their earthly wealth and entertainment more than anything else(which is why too a non-USA born citizen has crept into the White House).

Rev 3:14  And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Rev 3:15  I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17  Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18  I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Rev 3:19  As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Rev 3:20  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:21  To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Rev 3:22  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 05, 2014, 01:22:22 pm
Talk about going off of the deep end...

Oklahoma Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma

Posted: Jan 24, 2014 2:51 PM PST
Updated: Jan 24, 2014 2:51 PM PST

OKLAHOMA CITY - State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma.
 
The idea stems from a bill filed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Edmond). Turner says it's an attempt to keep same-sex marriage illegal in Oklahoma while satisfying the U.S. Constitution. Critics are calling it a political stunt while supporters say it's what Oklahomans want.

"[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all," Turner said.

Other conservative lawmakers feel the same way, according to Turner.

"Would it be realistic for the State of Oklahoma to say, ‘We're not going to do marriage period,'" asked News 9's Michael Konopasek.

"That would definitely be a realistic opportunity, and it's something that would be part of the discussion," Turner answered.

Such a discussion will be made possible by a current shell bill -- something that can be changed at almost any time to react to upcoming rulings on Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban.

"I think that, especially with issues like this, [these lawmakers are] out of touch with most Oklahomans," said Ryan Kiesel, ACLU Oklahoma executive detector.

Kiesel says prohibiting all marriage is new territory. In fact, the ACLU was unable to find an example of where a state has ever tried to ban all marriage. Kiesel believes the entire idea just boils down to politics.

"Moving forward I think we'll see less efforts like this," Kiesel said.

Turner admits his idea makes a lot of people uncomfortable. He also says, "I accept that." Turner plans to wait until the federal appeals process plays out. The fight over Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage will now head to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on February 09, 2014, 07:06:58 am
More Federal Privileges to Extend to Same-Sex Couples

The federal government will soon treat married same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples when they file for bankruptcy, testify in court or visit family in prison.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was preparing to issue policies aimed at eliminating the distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex married couples in the federal criminal justice system, according to a speech given at a Saturday event organized by a prominent gay-rights group.

“In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,” Mr. Holder’s said.

The changes were set in motion last year when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to refuse federal benefits to married same-sex couples, a ruling that Mr. Holder supported.
Related Coverage

    Terry Hueneke, left, and Michael J. Ross, who married in 2013, may benefit from filing their taxes jointly. But they say they are prepared to pay higher taxes one day, if the rules require a so-called marriage penalty. “I think we shouldn’t be in any different situation than any other married couple facing that possibility,” Mr. Ross said.
    Victory, and Tax Changes, for Same-Sex CouplesFEB. 7, 2014
    Eric H. Holder Jr.
    U.S. to Recognize 1,300 Marriages Disputed by UtahJAN. 10, 2014

Gay-rights advocates welcomed the changes but had hoped Mr. Holder would use his address before the Human Rights Campaign to announce that the president would sign an order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

“That would be big,” said Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in June, the Obama administration has rewritten federal rules to allow same-sex couples to file taxes together and receive Medicare and other benefits reserved for married couples. Mr. Holder has been the public face of those efforts and has made championing gay rights one of the central messages of his tenure.

“These issues are very much at the center of this administration’s civil rights legacy,” said Ian S. Thompson, who works on gay and lesbian issues for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington.

Speaking before Sweden’s Parliament a few days ago, Mr. Holder called fighting for gay and lesbian rights one of “the defining civil rights challenges of our time.”

The remarks on Saturday by Mr. Holder, the first black attorney general, cast the gay-rights movement as a continuation of the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.

“As all-important as the fight against racial discrimination was then, and remains today, know this: My commitment to confronting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity runs just as deep,” he said.

The government estimates that more than 1,100 federal regulations, rights and laws touch on, or are affected by, marital status. With a memo on Monday, Mr. Holder plans to make several of those provisions apply equally to gay and straight couples.

In court cases and criminal investigations, for example, same-sex couples will be covered under what is known as the spousal privilege, a rule that says spouses cannot be forced to testify against each other. The Bureau of Prisons will extend the same visitation rights to married same-sex couples that it does to opposite-sex couples, Mr. Holder said.

The Justice Department will also recognize same-sex couples when determining eligibility for programs like the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, which pays people who were injured or made sick by the 2001 terrorist attacks. Same-sex spouses of police killed in the line of duty will also be eligible for federal benefits.

The federal rules have no effect on state laws. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages.

Challenges to bans on same-sex marriage are under way in several states, including Utah. A federal judge there said in December that the state’s ban was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court put that decision on hold while an appeal played out.

Between those rulings, about 1,300 couples got marriage licenses in Utah. Last month, Mr. Holder said the federal government would recognize those marriages.

Opponents of same-sex marriage accused Mr. Holder of overstepping his authority in that case. Mr. Buseck, meanwhile, said the Obama administration could do more, such as the executive order on discrimination, to leave a civil rights legacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/us/more-federal-privileges-to-extend-to-same-sex-couples.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 11, 2014, 09:04:01 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-couples-court-overturn-same-sex-marriage-ban-170459210.html
Texas couples go to court to overturn same-sex marriage ban
2/11/14

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - Two gay couples in Texas will ask a federal court this week to overturn an amendment to the state's constitution barring same-sex marriage that has been staunchly supported by prominent Republican party leaders.

Even though 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex marriages, the activist group Freedom to Marry says this will be the first attempt to win recognition for same-sex marriage in the deep South, where every state has a constitutional amendment or law banning the practice.

The suit in Texas, aimed at nullifying the 2005 amendment, goes to court in San Antonio on Wednesday. It was filed by a high-powered law firm on behalf of two men in the Dallas area and two women in Austin.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the front-runner in the race this year for governor, has said the state has the right to establish its own marriage policies and will defend the amendment that passed with about 70 percent of voter support.

Lawyers for the couples plan to argue that the amendment runs counter to the U.S. Constitution and is a "badge of inferiority."

"It is undeniable that the arc of social justice points in the direction of marriage equality," said lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Neel Lane, who is from the Akin Gump law firm.

Lane says because marriage carries with it numerous legal benefits, to deny those benefits to gays and lesbians violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Abbott, in his response filed with the court, argues that gays and lesbians are not victims of discrimination under existing law.

"The U.S. Supreme Court was clear that states have independent authority to establish their marriage laws. Texans adopted a constitutional amendment defining marriage. We will defend that amendment," Abbott's office said in a statement.

Rick Perry, the current governor and former Republican candidate for president, has said he "believes in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, regarding it as the linchpin of the family unit and, thus, society as a whole."

The suit was filed on behalf of Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman, two women who live in Austin and were married in Massachusetts, and Victor Holmes and Mark Phariss, two men who were denied a marriage license when they applied last year.

Dimetman and her partner are both military veterans and were legally married in Massachusetts in 2001. They were told they could not jointly adopt a child in Texas because the state does not recognize the legality of their marriage.

They have been encouraged by what has been happening on the federal level with the Supreme Court in June striking down part of a 1996 federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Saturday announced widespread changes within the Justice Department to benefit same-sex married couples, such as recognizing a legal right for them not to testify against each other in civil and criminal cases.

"We are very fortunate that we live in a wonderful country that strives to be ever more inclusive every day," Dimetman said.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, will hear the case.

The case is Cleopatra De Leon, Nicole Dimetman, Victor Holmes and Mark Phariss versus Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, Gerard Rickhoff and David Lakey (all in their official capacities)

(Writing by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Tom Brown)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 12, 2014, 11:26:29 am
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-la-gay-marriage-lawsuit-planned-133447435.html
APNewsBreak: La. gay marriage lawsuit planned
2/12/14

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A gay rights group plans a legal challenge to the Louisiana Constitution's prohibition against recognizing same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.

The Forum for Equality Louisiana and four gay married couples have called a Wednesday news conference on the issue.

A draft of the group's planned lawsuit, obtained by The Associated Press, attacks the marriage recognition ban on several fronts.

For instance, it says state revenue department policy, based on the ban, essentially requires married same-sex couples who file joint federal tax returns to falsely claim they are single on state returns — a violation, the Forum says, of free speech.

The lawsuit challenges the state's refusal to recognize both members of a same-sex union as parents of a child born to them or adopted.

A 2004 amendment to the Louisiana Constitution says marriage in the state "shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman," and goes on to prohibit state officials or courts from recognizing a marriage "contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman." Currently, 17 states allow gay marriage.

The New Orleans-based Forum and the four couples plan to challenge the recognition ban, citing equal protection and free speech rights in the U.S. Constitution. Their decision follows months of legal research following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. The June 26 decision struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

That ruling led to a series of federal policy announcements regarding same-sex unions. One that comes into play in the Louisiana case is the Internal Revenue Service policy allowing legally married gay couples to file joint federal tax returns, even if they reside in states that do not recognize same-sex marriages.

Louisiana law directs taxpayers to use the same status on state tax returns that they use on federal returns. Because of the state constitution's ban, the revenue department requires that a gay couple filing as married on a federal tax return must file a Louisiana return as single or head of household. "The taxpayer must provide the same federal income tax information on the Louisiana State Return that would have been provided prior to the issuance" of the IRS ruling, state Revenue Secretary Tim Barfield wrote last September.

That policy essentially forces married couples who file joint federal returns to face different tax liabilities than other married couples in the state, the Forum maintains. And it requires them to falsely deny their marital status, the lawsuit draft says.

The legal challenge also addresses other instances in which legally married gay couples are treated differently from married opposite-sex couples, noting that same-sex spouses are denied inheritance rights when one dies; and that only one parent in a gay marriage is recognized on a child's birth certificate, posing a host of potential problems for the non-recognized parent if, for instance, the child needs parental permission for medical treatment.

In another legal challenge in neighboring Mississippi, a woman is seeking to divorce the wife she married in California. She wants Mississippi to recognize the marriage so she can get the divorce.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 12, 2014, 11:43:20 am
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/taxes-get-easier-for-same-sex-couples-sort-of-2014-02-07?siteid=yhoof2
Feb. 11, 2014, 8:18 a.m. EST

Taxes get easier for same-sex couples — sort of

Some couples will face complications when filing state tax returns


For most married gay couples, this may be the first tax season where preparing and filing their tax returns won’t be any more frustrating or tedious than it is for other married couples.

Now that the federal government is recognizing same-sex marriages, most couples are finally able to file as married on their federal tax returns, leaving them with a simplified filing process and a potentially lower tax bill. But some couples may still face complications when filing their state returns, especially those in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriages.

At issue is the fact that the Supreme Court ruling last year on same-sex marriages did not require states to recognize the unions as well. That has made filing taxes tricky in states that don’t recognize the unions, with each state setting its own policy for how returns should be filed. Some states are asking taxpayers to file as married on both their federal and state tax returns. Other states have indicated they want those couples to file as single at the state level — meaning some couples may have to prepare as many as five returns to crunch all the numbers properly. “It definitely gets confusing,” says Lindsey Buchholz, analyst and tax attorney from The Tax Institute at H&R Block. “It’s really important to be aware of your state rules.”

Some couples may need to prepare as many as five returns just so they can have the information they need to finish their taxes, says Buchholz. That includes the federal return where they file as a married couple, two dummy federal returns that each person fills out as if they were single (these don’t get turned in), and then two state returns that each spouse files as if they were single. In some cases, the special requirements prevent couples from e-filing their state returns, which may force them to wait longer for state refund checks. Idaho, for example, is asking taxpayers to include those dummy returns as part of their paperwork for their state returns.

Other states are helping taxpayers— and cutting down on their paperwork — by providing special worksheets and instructions on how they crunch the numbers. Alabama is asking taxpayers to file as single and attach the first two pages of their federal return when they file to the state.

Matters can get more complicated when couples have children or joint property, with states including Kentucky asking couples to separate credits and itemized deductions according to which spouse would benefit most. States also have different rules on what unions they will recognize. For instance, Rhode Island will accept same-sex marriages when it comes to tax filing but not civil unions. In Vermont, couples in civil unions must use the ‘civil union’ filing status on their state returns. In New Jersey, married couples and those in civil unions can file as married, but those in registered domestic partnerships cannot.

And 2013 isn’t the only tax year couples need to worry about. Some couples are looking back at previous tax returns to see if they will save money by amending them and re-filing as a married couple. Some couples may find they overpaid income taxes or investment taxes because they weren’t previously able to take advantage of certain credits and deductions. Some couples may have had to pay taxes on health benefits provided to a spouse in prior years and can now file to get that money back. Generally, the IRS allows taxpayers to amend returns for up to three years after the filing deadline, so couples may be able to amend returns going back to 2010.

And tax pros say that roughly a week into the filing season, it’s too soon to know exactly how many headaches same-sex couples will face when preparing their returns. “There’s a variety of open issues out there,” says Annette Nellen, a tax and accounting professor at San Jose State University. “Some of them will probably surface during the filing season.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 12, 2014, 08:50:43 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/kentucky-must-recognize-same-sex-marriages-other-states-203939907.html
Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages from other states: judge
2/12/14

(Reuters) - Kentucky must recognize the legal same-sex marriages of residents who wed outside the state, a federal judge said on Wednesday in the latest of a series of rulings that expand gay rights following a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year.

Four Kentucky same-sex couples who were married out of state had challenged a state law that declared such marriages void and the accompanying rights unenforceable. They did not challenge a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II in Louisville said a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions including the striking down of a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year led to his decision on Wednesday.

"Each of these small steps has led to this place and this time, where the right of same-sex spouses to the state-conferred benefits of marriage is virtually compelled," Heyburn said in a 23-page ruling.

Same-sex marriage is legal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia but not in the remaining states, and the debate over gay marriage is playing out in a series of court challenges around the United States.

The Kentucky ruling came on the same day that same-sex couples in Missouri challenged that state's ban on recognizing their marriages from other states.

(Reporting by David Bailey; Editing by Meredith Mazzilli)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 12, 2014, 09:49:30 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/nevada-drops-defense-state-gay-marriage-ban-citing-004807974.html;_ylt=AtNcOfP_abn6K._jfSnJ5NDQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsbzR0bHJyBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNzcg--
Nevada ends fight to ban gay marriage, cites changed landscape
2/10/14

By Jonathan Kaminsky

(Reuters) - Nevada dropped its defense of a state ban on gay marriage on Monday, saying the U.S. legal landscape had changed and its arguments in support of a voter-approved ban on same-sex nuptials were no longer sustainable.

The move, made by the state's Democratic attorney general with the support of its Republican governor, does not legalize gay marriage in Nevada but removes the state as an opponent of those fighting to overturn the ban in federal court.

State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said that after careful review, the state had filed a motion to withdraw a brief it filed last month in support of the ban in a case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Nevada's voters approved a state constitutional amendment by wide margins in back-to-back elections in 2000 and 2002 barring same-sex marriage, establishing that "only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect."

A group of eight same-sex couples sued to challenge the ban as unconstitutional, saying the state's domestic-partnership statute relegates them to second-class status. They lost at the district court level, but appealed to the 9th Circuit.

Since then, the U.S. landscape on gay marriage has shifted rapidly, with 17 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia now recognizing same-sex marriage. Federal court rulings would add Utah and Oklahoma to that group if legal decisions overturning gay marriage bans in those states are upheld.

In explaining her reversal, Masto cited a 9th Circuit panel's recent ruling that potential jurors cannot be dismissed during jury selection because of their sexual orientation.

That ruling was issued the same day that Masto filed her earlier brief in defense of Nevada's same-sex marriage ban, on January 21.

In supporting Masto's move, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, who is seeking re-election this year, said the state's ban would not hold up to legal scrutiny.

"Based upon the advice of the attorney general's office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court," Sandoval, a Republican, said of the decision.

(Reporting by Jonathan Kaminsky in Olympia, Washington; Writing by Cynthia Johnston; Editing by Dan Whitcomb, Eric Walsh and Lisa Shumaker)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 12, 2014, 10:00:58 pm
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/12/gay-marriage-groups-differ-on-timing.html
2/12/14
Gay-marriage groups differ on timing

The timing of a proposed Ohio same-sex marriage amendment, and the inclusion of an exemption for religious institutions, continue to divide two gay-activist groups supporting the issue.

EqualityOhio officials say this year is too early for a campaign to overturn the state’s 10-year-old constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. They also question the proposed ballot language, including the right of religious organizations to refuse to perform or recognize such unions.

“We are waiting to win and not running to lose,” said Michael Premo, manager of the Why Marriage Matters Ohio education campaign. “A win here would be a significant victory for our side. This is for all the marbles.”

But FreedomOhio representatives, who already have collected 650,000 signatures on a petition to put the issue on the statewide ballot, say the time is right and the support is there this year.

“We are an Ohio-based coalition with thousands of Ohio volunteers that includes a campaign team with more than 200 years of practical boots-on-the-ground (collective) experience,” said Ian James, FreedomOhio co-founder and executive director. “We are on track to collect

1 million signatures for marriage, and we remain open to anyone who wants to join us.”

The stakes are high because if the issue fails, it likely would not be resurrected quickly, perhaps not for years.

A clause in the proposed ballot wording that would provide a “religious institution” exemption is a flashpoint of disagreement. As approved by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s office, the issue says “no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.”

In a meeting yesterday with Dispatch editors, Premo questioned the 46-word amendment and the exemption.

“We’re taking a deep dive on the ballot language to see if it does what it’s supposed to do,” he said. “There are questions we need to take a closer look at.”

Premo said the exemption potentially could be used by a hospital affiliated with a church or religious group as the rationale for denying spousal rights to a same-sex couple. He said EqualityOhio would not support the amendment if it disagrees with the wording.

New language would mean starting over with a new petition drive to collect 385,245 valid signatures of registered Ohio voters.

The timing of when the issue hits the ballot also is in dispute. If the campaign goes to the ballot this year, the big-ticket race is the re-election bid of Gov. John Kasich; in 2016, it would be the presidential election.

Washington-based GOP pollster Neil Newhouse, who worked for Kasich’s and Mitt Romney’s campaigns, said the challenge in passing a same-sex marriage issue is turning out supporters. “The voters who feel most strongly about this are anti-gay marriage,” he said. “The pro side will have to turn out low-propensity, younger voters. It’s easier to turn out those voters in a presidential year. In a low-interest gubernatorial year, it’s much more difficult.

“The local guy wants Ohio to make a statement and flip on this issue, but running this year is very, very risky for them.”

Citizens for Community Values, the Cincinnati-based conservative group that led the charge for the 2004 constitutional amendment, is gearing up for a fight, whether it’s this year or in 2016, Phil Burress said. He predicted previously that putting the issue on the ballot this year “spells victory for John Kasich.”

Burress said the gay-marriage amendment on the 2004 ballot helped turn out GOP voters and secure a re-election victory for President George W. Bush.

Yesterday, the group circulated an email predicting that churches would get sued if Ohioans legalize same-sex marriage.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 13, 2014, 10:19:18 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/lawsuit-challenges-ala-anti-gay-marriage-law-182541909.html;_ylt=AhFx9UVL1logXPsoAEylHLjQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsNGg1aHNnBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHNlYwNzcg--
Lawsuit challenges Ala. anti-gay marriage law
2/13/14

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A gay man whose partner was killed in a car accident has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Alabama laws that bar the recognition of his marriage, which took place in Massachusetts.

The lawsuit, filed in Montgomery federal court, seeks to force Alabama to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states that allow them. Lawyers said the bans are unconstitutional and treat Alabama gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.

"The sanctity laws silence and demean lesbian and gay Alabamians by sending a clear message: You are less than other citizens and your relationships mean nothing here," said Samuel E. Wolfe, a lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is representing the plaintiff.

Notice of the lawsuit was delivered to Alabama's governor and attorney general Thursday, Wolfe said.

The suit — coming just one day after a federal judge in Kentucky struck down that state's similar ban — was initiated by Paul Hard, 55, of Montgomery. Hard says he was treated cruelly after the death of his husband, David Fancher, virtually ignored at the Alabama hospital where Fancher was taken after the accident.

Hard said he is also fighting to be considered as the surviving spouse in ongoing litigation over Fancher's death.

Fancher, 53, died within moments of the crash, but Hard said hospital staff refused to give him any information about his condition because the two weren't considered legally related. An orderly later passed on the news that Fancher had died, Hard said.

The pain was compounded when the death certificate listed Fancher as never married. Hard said he futilely begged to have that changed.

"If I can let people know how this law unjustly and cruelly affects people, I will do it. Ultimately, I hope these laws are overturned so it no longer gives folks permission to treat Americans as second-class citizens," Hard said.

The Alabama Legislature in 1998 approved the Defense of Marriage Act that said Alabama would not recognize same-sex unions. Alabamians in 2006 voted to put a similar ban in the state constitution.

That vote proved that the state's residents believe "marriage in our state exists only between a man and a woman," said Alabama Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard in a statement criticizing the lawsuit.

"This lawsuit is part of a coordinated liberal agenda that is designed to erode the conservative Alabama values that the citizens of our state hold close to their hearts," Hubbard said.

The lawsuit is the latest in a string challenging gay marriage bans in socially conservative states.

In addition to Kentucky, federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma also recently that struck down gay marriage bans in those states. A case is also awaiting a federal judge's decision in Virginia


Couples in Louisiana and Missouri filed similar challenges this week.

Southern Poverty Law Center David Dinielli said the lawsuit relies on the precedent set by the case that overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act. He said he hopes the case will continue a trend of federal judges finding the state bans unconstitutional.

Like recent challenges in other states, the lawsuit asserts that the Alabama laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by treating gays and lesbians differently than heterosexual couples.

Dinielli said the lawsuit was filed in Montgomery federal court because Fancher and Hard both lived in the city and that Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and Attorney General Luther Strange are defendants in the case.

Strange's office said it had no comment. Jennifer Ardis, Bentley's communications director, said the governor believes in the "traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman" and would fight the lawsuit.

Hard, a therapist and former Baptist preacher, and Fancher married in a 2011 ceremony in Massachusetts, one of the states that allow same-sex couples to wed.

Part of the legal peg for the lawsuit is that Hard can't be considered the surviving spouse and can't collect any judgment in the ongoing wrongful death litigation over the crash. However, Hard said his motivation is principle, not money.

Hard said he believed Fancher, who he said was a strong advocate for the gay community, would be proud.

"I think, frankly, he would tell me to go for it," Hard said.


Title: Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 13, 2014, 10:56:58 pm
Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-va-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-035319340.html
2/13/14

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, making it the first state in the South to have its voter-approved prohibition overturned.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen issued a stay of her order while it is appealed, meaning that gay couples in Virginia will still not be able to marry until the case is ultimately resolved. Both sides believe the case won't be settled until the Supreme Court decides to hear it or one like it.

Allen's ruling makes Virginia the second state in the South to issue a ruling recognizing the legality of gay marriages.

A judge in Kentucky ruled Wednesday that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. It did not rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages inside the state, however. The Virginia judge's ruling also follows similar decisions in Utah and Oklahoma federal courts.

"Through its decision today, the court has upheld the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded," the plaintiffs' lead co-counsel, Theodore B. Olson, said in a statement.

The Virginia Attorney General's Office took the unusual step of not defending the law because it believes the ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In her ruling, Wright Allen agreed.

"The court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry. Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family," Wright Allen wrote.

Wright Allen's stay was requested by the Virginia Attorney General's Office in order to avoid a situation similar to what happened in Utah after a federal judge declared that state's ban on gay marriages unconstitutional.

More than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples were married in the days after the ruling before the U.S. Supreme Court granted the state an emergency stay, halting the weddings and creating a cloud of uncertainty for the status of the married couples. Soon after, a federal judge also declared Oklahoma's ban unconstitutional. That ruling is also on hold while it is appealed.

"The legal process will continue to play out in the months to come, but this decision shows that Virginia, like America, is coming to a better place in recognizing that every Virginian deserves to be treated equally and fairly," Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, said in a statement.

In a movement that began with Massachusetts in 2004, 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow gay marriage, most of them clustered in the Northeast. None of them is in the old Confederacy.

The Virginia case centered on a gay Norfolk couple who were denied a marriage license by the Norfolk Circuit Court in July, shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. A Chesterfield County couple who married in California and are raising a teenage daughter also later joined the lawsuit, seeking to have their marriage recognized in Virginia. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs are the same ones who successfully challenged California's voter-approved ban on gay marriages in court.

In her ruling, Wright Allen said the lesbian couple "suffer humiliation and discriminatory treatment on the basis of their sexual orientation."

"This stigmatic harm flows directly from current state law."

Opponents of the Virginia ban say the issue resonates in Virginia in particular because of a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Virginia couple and interracial marriage.

Mildred and Richard Loving were married in Washington, D.C., and were living in Virginia when police raided their home in 1958 and charged them with violating the state's Racial Integrity law. They were convicted but prevailed before the Supreme Court.

During verbal arguments in the case, Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael said that the ban on gay marriage is legally indistinguishable from the ban on interracial marriage. He said the same arguments to defend the ban now are the same ones that were used back then, including that marriage between two people of the same sex has never been historically allowed. Wright Allen concurred with that assessment in her ruling.

"Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial marriage," she wrote.

Raphael also said supporters have failed to prove how allowing gay marriage would make heterosexual couples less likely to marry.

In defending the law, the attorney for the Norfolk clerk said that the issue is best left for the General Assembly and the voters to decide.

Nationwide, there are more than a dozen states with federal lawsuits challenging state bans on same-sex marriage.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on February 14, 2014, 03:45:57 am
Notice how these reprobates are getting "married" in gay states, then moving to states where it's banned, then filing lawsuits?

And yet again, a FEDERAL, female judge rules against a whole state's residents.

Federal tyranny is out of control.

And here's the payoff...she's an Obama appointee(2011), and former Commander in the US Navy Judge Advocate General Corp.

This to me shows that her ruling is not a legal decision, but a political decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arenda_L._Wright_Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arenda_L._Wright_Allen)

Quote
Legal career

Wright Allen started her legal career as a JAG officer in the United States Navy as an active duty officer between 1985 and 1990 and in the United States Navy Reserve between 1992 and 2005. She was an assistant U.S. attorney in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia from 2001 to 2005. Wright Allen joined the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2005, where she had served as a Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender until becoming a federal judge in 2011.[4]
Nomination to the federal court

On the recommendation of Senators Jim Webb and Mark R. Warner, Wright Allen was nominated to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by President Barack Obama on December 1, 2010 to a seat vacated Jerome B. Friedman, who assumed senior status on November 30, 2010.[5]

The United States Senate confirmed Wright Allen on May 11, 2011 in a 96–0 vote.[6] She received her judicial commission the following day.

Just look at her time and experience. Pay no attention to the fact she is black. She spent less than 5 years as a US Asst. Attorney, then only 5 years later, shes nominated to be a federal judge!

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-gay-marriage-case-difficult-pigeonhole-152051498.html (http://news.yahoo.com/judge-gay-marriage-case-difficult-pigeonhole-152051498.html)

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_404h/2010-2019/Wires/Online/2014-02-06/AP/Images/Gay%20Marriage%20Virginia%20Judge.JPEG-07f5f.jpg)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 14, 2014, 10:14:35 pm
So only 5 years as a US attorney's assistant, and only 5 years as a public defender?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/oops-va-judge-confuses-constitution-declaration-of-independence-in-gay-marriage-ruling/
Oops! Va. Judge Confuses Constitution, Declaration of Independence in Gay Marriage Ruling
2/14/14

A federal judge who struck down Virginia’s ban on gay marriage inaccurately attributed a quote from Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.

“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us,” Arenda Wright Allen wrote in her original opinion, issued late Thursday.

Though the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “equal protection” under the law, the Constitution does not include the phrase “all men are created equal.” That would be the Declaration of Independence.

Several judicial observers noted the discrepancy, including South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman.

Sure enough, by mid-day today, Allen issued a second draft: “Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that ‘all men’ are created equal.”

Blackman also pointed out that the words “all men” are included in the Virginia Constitution.

Adopted in 1971, Section One of the current Virginia Constitution asserts “all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights.”

Judge Allen’s ruling on the case remained unchanged.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on February 15, 2014, 02:23:02 am
Quote
“all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights.”

Clearly the Virginia constitution was not what she was referencing. She was talking about the US Constitution, and she was stone cold wrong. A federal judge at that!  ::)

The whole judicial system has become a joke.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 18, 2014, 09:00:10 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-gay-couple-sues-being-denied-obamacare-coverage-234823986--sector.html
Ohio gay couple sues after being denied Obamacare coverage
2/18/14

Reuters) - A gay couple in Ohio filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday, charging they were unable to obtain family coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law because the state of Ohio does not recognize their same-sex marriage.

The plaintiffs, Alfred Cowger and Anthony Wesley of Gates Mills, Ohio, have been together since 1986 and were married in New York state in 2012, six years after adopting a daughter, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio.

The suit names the U.S. government and the state of Ohio as defendants, charging they violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by refusing to recognize their married status, thereby preventing them from enrolling in family coverage under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

The plaintiffs said they had been covered under the same policy for the past 15 years, which included their recognition as "domestic partners." Their daughter also became covered under their policy at the time they were granted custody in 2006.

After the family moved to the Cleveland area from Pennsylvania in 2010, the three were covered under the same non-group family health insurance policy purchased from Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio.

With Cowger starting to scale back his law practice in early 2013 and Wesley retired from his job as a chief financial officer, the couple faced reduced income and became interested in family coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

After initially being unable to enroll in Obamacare because of glitches involving the troubled rollout of the healthcare.gov website, they said in the suit that they were assured by Anthem they could remain under its policy after December 2013, although premiums would increase by about 20 percent.

But in November, according to the suit, Cowger said he received a letter from Anthem stating their policy "was to be terminated because it was not in compliance with the ACA."

A new family policy with Anthem would cost about twice their existing one, or about half the family's joint income, and not be eligible for tax credits under Obamacare.

'NOT DEEMED VALID'

Cowger said he returned to the ACA marketplace and logged some 100 hours trying to obtain family coverage. He said in the suit he was repeatedly told by marketplace representatives that he and his spouse should be able to obtain a family policy because they were legally married in New York and planned to file a joint 2013 tax return.

"However, each time, Cowger would ultimately be told that it was determined that plaintiffs could not purchase a family policy since their legal marriage in New York, recognized as valid for federal tax purposes, was not deemed valid to obtain a family policy under the ACA," the suit said.

Ultimately facing the loss of all health coverage at the end of 2013, Cowger and Wesley were forced to obtain separate individual health insurance policies from the marketplace, their lawsuit said.

The inability of Cowger and Wesley to get family coverage under Obamacare created further complications that also ultimately required them to get a separate policy for their daughter, the suit said.

"As a result, the Cowger-Wesley family went from one family policy in 2013 to three different individual policies," it added.

Ohio state officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

U.S. Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said in a statement: "We are aware that same-sex married couples in some states are experiencing issues in obtaining family plans and (are) looking into ways to address this issue for the 2015 plan year."

"While we work to address this situation, same-sex married couples can use their tax credit to buy individual policies for each spouse if they are unable to obtain a family plan in their current state," she said.

(Reporting by Peter Cooney, editing by G Crosse)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on February 19, 2014, 04:29:03 am
Quote
The inability of Cowger and Wesley to get family coverage under Obamacare created further complications that also ultimately required them to get a separate policy for their daughter, the suit said.

See, they need to prove their allegations, because that makes no sense. If one of those sodomites has custody of the daughter, then the child could be on her "parent's" policy, even though the state wouldn't cover the gay couple.

Personally, I think they are lying. This is another case it seems where a gay couple has "married" in a state that recognizes it, and in turn the couple then moves to a state that does not recognize gay marriage for the sole purpose to sue somebody for their "rights".


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 20, 2014, 09:54:57 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-says-not-defend-state-ban-gay-marriage-005229662.html
Oregon says will not defend state ban on gay marriage
2/20/14

Reuters) - Oregon will not defend a ban on gay marriage in the state, which was sued by four same-sex couples who argue the prohibition violates equality guarantees enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, the state's top law enforcement official said on Thursday.

The decision by Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum makes Oregon the third state in the past month to cease defense in federal court of gay marriage bans, after Nevada and Virginia, as activists fight for legalization across the United States.

"The law in this area is developing, and it is now clear that there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples in the same way it honors the commitments of opposite-sex couples," Rosenblum, a Democrat, said in announcing the decision.

But the move will not result in immediate legalization of gay marriage in the Democratic-dominated state, where a 2004 voter-approved amendment to the state constitution banned same-sex nuptials.

In all, 17 states and the District of Columbia recognize gay marriage in a trend that has gained momentum since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that legally married same-sex couples nationwide are eligible for federal benefits. The court struck down part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Since mid-December, federal judges have ruled prohibitions on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia, although the decisions have been stayed pending appeal.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has also ruled gay marriage legal in that state, while in Colorado, nine couples filed suit in federal court on Wednesday to overturn that state's gay marriage ban.

While Oregon law bans same-sex marriages in the state, it does allow domestic partnerships and since October has recognized the marriages of same-sex couples wed elsewhere.

REPEAL EFFORT

Oregon gay marriage backers had planned to put a repeal of the state ban before voters in November, but said they will hold the 160,000 signatures they have gathered pending the outcome of the court case.

"Now that we have done the hard work of assuring a place on the ballot and moving public opinion, we have the ability to wait for the courts to do the right thing," Oregon United for Marriage campaign manager Mike Marshall said in a statement.

Opponents of gay marriage said they were disappointed with the move, with the president of the National Organization for Marriage saying Rosenblum was "shamefully abandoning" her duty to defend an amendment enacted by voters.

"She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with," said Brian Brown, the organization's president.

With so many challenges to state gay marriage bans gaining traction in the lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court may feel pressure to settle the question of whether gay couples have a constitutional right to wed, said Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia Law School professor.

Should the Supreme Court take up the issue again, it will face a transformed political and legal terrain, Goldberg said.

"Whenever a case gets to the Supreme Court, the court will see a nation in which gay couples are marrying in many states and where some states no longer feel they can defend the exclusion of gay couples from marriage," Goldberg said. "That is a very different landscape from even a year ago."


(Reporting By Jonathan Kaminsky in Olympia, Washington; Writing by Cynthia Johnston; Editing by Amanda Kwan, Grant McCool and Andre Grenon)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on February 21, 2014, 04:18:35 am
Quote
"She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with," said Brian Brown, the organization's president.

EXACTLY. It's that simple.

Somebody needs to remind these people in the "justice" branch...

(https://sp3.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608027275924474567&pid=15.1)

The law has no bias but the facts of record, the balances, and symbolized by the statue eyes being covered with a blindfold.

Technically, I believe the law is such that those government officials that refuse to defend current US law would be fired and brought up on charges for refusing to not do their jobs in direct violation of the oath they took.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 23, 2014, 08:44:43 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/02/23/gay-marriage-group-launches-1-million-pr-campaign-across-south/?wprss=rss_national
2/23/14
Gay marriage group launches $1 million PR campaign across South

A group supporting same-sex marriage will kick off an advertising campaign in Southern states in hopes of swaying public opinion and the judges who will decide the fate of state bans on gay unions.

Freedom to Marry, the national pro-gay marriage organization based in New York, will announce a new $1 million television ad campaign at a press conference Monday in Atlanta. The campaign, dubbed Southerners for the Freedom to Marry, will highlight prominent politicians and community leaders who back same-sex marriage.

But the ad campaign isn’t trying to win legislative support for same-sex marriage. Every state in the South has passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and Republicans dominate all but a small handful of Southern state legislatures.

Instead, the campaign will push to grow public support for same-sex marriage. About two dozen lawsuits challenging bans on gay marriage are pending before state and federal courts in Southern states, and Freedom to Marry hopes that building public support for same-sex marriage can influence those judges’ decisions.

In recent months, judges in Oklahoma, Kentucky and Virginia have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage, though those rulings are stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.

“Freedom to Marry’s national strategy has always been to build a critical mass of states and support to create the climate for the Supreme Court to bring the country to national resolution. We don’t have to win within every state, but we have to win enough states,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed will join the group at its Monday press conference. The group will also try to tie same-sex marriage to the civil rights movement, by featuring Rep. John Lewis, the longtime Georgia Democrat who ran the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, in a testimonial.

“I see the right to marriage as a civil rights issue. You cannot have rights for one segment of the population and one group of people and not for everybody,” Lewis says in the video.

Co-chairs will include Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Reps. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), as well as Mark McKinnon, a former senior adviser to George W. Bush and Lance Bass, the ‘N Sync singer.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on February 26, 2014, 02:26:12 pm
Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional - @mySA, @chucklindell

read more on mysanantonio.com



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 26, 2014, 02:29:29 pm
Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional - @mySA, @chucklindell

read more on mysanantonio.com



Wow, that was QUICK! Yeah, being from the state of Texas, this IS big news!


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on February 27, 2014, 10:49:46 am
2m
With judge's order, same-sex marriage now legally recognized in Kentucky - @AP


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on February 27, 2014, 02:12:14 pm
Supreme Court rulings made sure this would take off like wildfire, and so it is.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 27, 2014, 08:00:31 pm
2m
With judge's order, same-sex marriage now legally recognized in Kentucky - @AP


Just to clarify - Kentucky is recognizing SSM marriages that were legally done in other states(ie-California and MA) that moved down to KY. They're not legalizing SSM by those who want to get married within their state.

But nonetheless - doesn't matter either way, as full legalizing in this country will happen in the imminent future.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 03, 2014, 12:45:11 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/michigans-witness-gay-marriage-trial-barred-171156615.html
Michigan's witness in gay marriage trial barred
3/3/14

DETROIT (AP) — A judge barred an Ivy League law student Monday from testifying at Michigan's gay marriage trial, saying he might become an expert witness someday but his opinions wouldn't help sway this case.

It was a blow for the Michigan attorney general's office, which had offered Sherif Girgis as its first witness in defense of a 2004 constitutional amendment that bars same-sex marriage.

Girgis has written and talked about a historical defense of marriage between a man and a woman going back to ancient philosophers such as Cicero and Plato. He's pursuing a law degree at Yale University and a doctorate in philosophy in Princeton University.

"The fact is you're still a student. Someone else is still grading your papers," said attorney Ken Mogill, co-counsel for two Detroit-area nurses challenging the gay-marriage ban.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said Girgis is smart, articulate and bound to become an expert in his field.

"But not quite yet," Friedman said.

The trial entered its second week Monday. Earlier in the day, Lisa Brown, a Democrat and the elected clerk of Oakland County, was asked about an email sent last October from the attorney general's office during a hearing in the case.

Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican, had warned counties not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even if the judge threw out the ban at that time. The state said other legal moves would be in the works.

Friedman, however, took no action and instead ordered a trial, which began Feb. 25.

"My job is to follow what the judge says, not what the attorney general says," said Brown, who supports gay marriage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the defense's "expert" witness is some college student? It's as if all of this is by design to give into the enemy...


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 06, 2014, 09:14:33 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-marriage-seems-headed-back-supreme-court-021208099--politics.html
3/6/14
Same-sex marriage seems headed back to the Supreme Court

Recent events in several states, including Kentucky, Texas and Utah, seem to indicate another same-sex marriage decision is heading toward the Supreme Court.

“From a legal standpoint I draw the line at discrimination,” Conway told Time magazine in an interview.

In a statement, Governor Beshear said he wanted the issues in the case settled once and for all, including whether Kentucky has to recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in other states, and if states have the right to pass their own laws barring same-sex marriages.

“Both of these issues, as well as similar issues being litigated in other parts of the country, will be and should be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to bring finality and certainty to this matter. The people of this country need to know what the rules will be going forward.  Kentucky should be a part of this process,” Beshear said.

Beshear asked for a stay in the case until it could be considered with other similar cases.

As of today, decisions have been made in six states by federal judges striking down same-sex marriage bans.

Those decisions are on hold, but they’ve created complications already.  In Utah, for example, same-same marriages were allowed for a brief time period until the Supreme Court issued a stay. The federal government will recognize about 1,000 such unions in Utah for federal benefits purposes, but the state won’t, until the Supreme Court issues a ruling.

In Ohio, a federal district judge ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other states. In Texas, a federal judge said that the state’s ban on same-sex marriages “conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.”

The decisions raise an argument about the existence of a constitutional reason for a state to deny same-sex couples an equal right to marry.

Five of the district judges also cited comments from Justice Antonin Scalia in prior Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision from 2003.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia quoted Scalia’s Lawrence dissent in detail.

“[W]hat justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry,” Scalia wrote in 2003, in his criticism of the Court’s majority decision
.

“What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?” Scalia pondered in 2003.

In this dissent in the Defense of Marriage Act case in 2013, Windsor v. United States, Scalia posed the same theoretical questions about the majority opinion.

“As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘ “bare . . . desire to harm” ’couples in same-sex marriages. … How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status,” Scalia said.

But in the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy made it clear the Court wasn’t considering the constitutional right of the states to ignore same-sex marriages legal in other states.

“DOMA contains two operative sections: Section 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States,” Kennedy said. The Court also declined to say whether there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriages.

Justice Scalia didn’t buy that argument.

“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here,” Scalia said. “The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”

For now, the current cases are heading to federal appeals courts, where a split among the judges could hasten the issue’s arrival at the Supreme Court during its next term.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 07, 2014, 10:17:20 pm
4 couples sue Indiana over same-sex marriage ban
http://news.yahoo.com/4-couples-sue-indiana-over-same-sex-marriage-184359492.html

Same-sex couples challenge Wyoming's ban on gay marriage
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-couples-challenge-wyomings-ban-gay-marriage-045859109--finance.html;_ylt=Appy4Uxs7Gjr2NqiQFt8jz3QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsaGVqY3E0BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNzcg--

Western U.S. Republicans to urge appeals court to back gay marriage
http://news.yahoo.com/western-u-republicans-urge-appeals-court-back-gay-085857009.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 13, 2014, 10:58:10 pm
When rains, it pours...

https://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-couples-arizona-file-suit-over-state-170332995.html
3/13/14
Arizona same-sex couples sue state over gay marriage ban

PHOENIX (Reuters) - A group of same-sex couples in Arizona filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday to challenge the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that it violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, court documents showed.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix by seven same-sex couples and two people whose same-sex partners had died. It is the latest of a series of legal actions across the nation challenging such state bans.

"Every day that same-sex couples in Arizona are denied marriage, the government sends a message that their families are not worthy of equal dignity and respect," Jennifer Pizer, one of the attorneys who filed the legal action, said in a statement.

The lawsuit comes as gay rights advocates gain momentum in their fight to legalize same-sex marriage. Federal judges have recently struck down gay marriage bans in states including Utah and Texas. Such rulings have been put on hold pending appeals.

The trend follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that legally married same-sex couples nationwide are eligible for federal benefits. The decision struck down a key part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Arizona is among more than 30 states that still ban gay or lesbian couples from marrying. The lawsuit says an Arizona constitutional amendment and state statutes that ban same-sex marriage violate federal equal protection and due process clauses.

Last month, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have allowed business owners to claim their religious beliefs as legal justification for refusing to serve same-sex couples or any other prospective customers, widely believed to have been drafted in response to the national momentum toward legalizing same-sex marriage.

Brewer, who said Wednesday that she would not seek another term, was under intense pressure from business and political leaders to veto the bill.

TOGETHER 55 YEARS

The lead plaintiffs in the Arizona case are a septuagenarian couple, Nelda Majors, 75, and Karen Bailey, 74, who live in the Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale. The two women, who have been together 55 years, raised two children together.

On March 4, the couple tried to get a marriage license in Maricopa County, where they live, but were turned down.

Another of the seven couples also tried and failed to obtain a license, and the rest were legally married in other states and seek to have their marriages recognized.

The lawsuit appeared to have been carefully crafted to raise a number of issues facing same-sex couples in Arizona, said Barbara Atwood, a constitutional and family law specialist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

For example, Arizona law only allows people whose marriages are recognized in the state to adopt children, Atwood said. In the case of one lesbian couple in the lawsuit, she said, one woman is the biological mother of twins.

The other woman is barred under Arizona law from adopting the children, even though the couple was legally married in another state.

Two of the plaintiffs had been legally married in other states, but were not identified on the death certificates after their spouses died, the lawsuit said.

From an emotional point of view, failure to be named on the death certificate amounted to a "shocking denial of their relationships at the time of most intense loss and grief, and remains a source of pain and deep sadness," the lawsuit said.

But there were practical implications as well, according to Atwood. Because the deceased spouse was not named on the death certificate, the surviving partner was barred from receiving Social Security survivor benefits.

The lawsuit names as defendants Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne; Will Humble, director of the state health services department, and Michael Jeanes, Maricopa County Superior Court clerk.

Through his spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, Horne said the attorney general's office would defend the state against the lawsuit.

"As Attorney General it is my duty to defend Arizona law," Horne said.

Earlier this month, the governor of Kentucky said he would hire an outside lawyer to appeal a federal court ruling striking down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, after Attorney General Jack Conway declined to do so.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 13, 2014, 11:10:49 pm
Eight Same Sex Couples In Florida Sue State for Recognition of their Outside Marriages @Huffington Post


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on March 14, 2014, 03:35:51 am
I guess Florida was next on the gay militants calender!  ::)

This whole "I'm special, I'm gay..." selfishness bs turns my stomach.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 14, 2014, 10:55:15 am
I guess Florida was next on the gay militants calender!  ::)

This whole "I'm special, I'm gay..." selfishness bs turns my stomach.

They won't be saying that at the Great White Throne...

Philippians 2:9  Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on March 15, 2014, 09:02:50 am
Tennessee told to recognize gay marriages
   
   
The Dispatch public affairs team talks politics and tackles state and federal government issues in the Buckeye Forum podcast. Your Right to Know.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2014/03/15/tennessee-told-to-recognize-gay-marriages.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 15, 2014, 03:53:58 pm
Tennessee told to recognize gay marriages
   
The Dispatch public affairs team talks politics and tackles state and federal government issues in the Buckeye Forum podcast. Your Right to Know.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2014/03/15/tennessee-told-to-recognize-gay-marriages.html

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-calls-tenn-gay-marriage-ban-historical-footnote-171623465.html
Judge calls Tenn. gay marriage ban historical 'footnote': Do Southerners now agree?

The South remains the most hard-line US region opposing same-sex marriage. But a recent shift in public attitudes – even in the Bible Belt – suggests that may be changing.

3/15/14

In ordering an injunction against Tennessee’s ban on gay marriage, a federal judge on Friday called laws against recognizing same sex couples mere “footnotes” in history.

As the legal battle over gay rights shifts to the South, the big question now is whether Southerners have tacitly begun to agree with that notion.

The injunction ruling by Judge Aleta Trauger covers three couples who filed a lawsuit last year against the 2006 state constitutional amendment that both bans gay marriage in the state and orders officials not to recognize marriage certificates from other states. The judge has not made a final ruling in the case, but did seem to tip her hat Friday.

"At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs' marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history," Judge Trauger wrote in the order.

The ruling is the fourth of its kind in the South, which remains the most hard-line region when it comes to denying people of the same sex joining in state-sanctioned unions. In Tennessee, 81 percent of voters approved the gay marriage constitutional ban in 2006.

But a recent shift in public attitudes on gay marriage – even here in the Bible Belt – suggests that a truce could be near.

A Washington Post poll this week showed support for gay marriage in the South at 50 percent for the first time, compared to 59 percent support nationally. Forty-two percent of Southerners say they’re opposed to gay marriage.

While geographic splits on same-sex marriage approval do show the South lagging other regions, it’s no longer a minority view even here, and it isn’t hard to fathom which way it’s trending,” writes Bruce Barry in the Nashville Scene.

Gay couples are filing lawsuits at a rapid pace in states where voters approved anti-gay marriage amendments to their state constitutions – Indiana, for example, saw 11 couples joining a lawsuit filed on Friday alone. The suits are coming on the heels of last year’s Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the right of same-sex couples to get federal benefits. Since then, judges have struck down marriage bans in Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, and Texas.

In the US, pro-gay marriage states are clustered in the Northeast and Far West; anti-gay marriage states are stacked up in the South, in the Appalachians, the Ohio River Valley, and parts of the Mountain West.

In response to Friday’s ruling in Tennessee, David Fowler, president of Family Action Council of Tennessee, said he expects attorney general Robert Cooper to appeal any final ruling against the marriage ban.

The judge “clearly signaled her intent to continue the war by unelected federal judges against the rights of the states and the citizens … to determine what its policies regarding marriage should be,” Mr. Fowler fumed in a statement.

But it’s not clear, given changing attitudes and legal dynamics – including US Attorney General Eric Holder telling state attorneys general they don’t have to try to uphold laws they feel are discriminatory – whether Southern officials will try to rebuff the courts.

Already, six Democratic attorneys generals have said they will not appeal court rulings striking down gay marriage bans in their states. Such hesitation has begun to spread to the South, as well. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway angered conservatives in the state when he recently signaled he will not appeal a federal pro-gay marriage ruling in his state
.

"Southerners are increasingly on a journey in support of the freedom to marry," said Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, in a statement. "At its core, marriage is about love and family – deeply ingrained Southern values."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on March 16, 2014, 03:17:31 am
Quote
But a recent shift in public attitudes – even in the Bible Belt – suggests that may be changing.

It's changing because the US courts are forcing the change, and people generally go by what the courts say. People are not deciding they suddenly agree with it, they are siding with what is being forced on the people. Big difference.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 19, 2014, 02:03:30 pm
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/family/marriage/divorce/why-divorce-different-same-sex-couples?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO
Why Divorce is Different for Same-Sex Couples
3/18/14

NEW YORK (MainStreet) — Lesbian and gay people tend to earn more than their heterosexual counterparts and have a slightly lower unemployment rate, according to a recent survey; however, marriage isn't always beneficial between same sex couples especially when it comes to divorce.

"Getting married can put two high wage earners into a higher tax bracket," said Debra Abbott-Walker, manager of agency recruiting with Prudential. "It's an individual choice and decision."

The salary of gay people is $61,500 compared to $50,054 for the national average, according to a Prudential survey of more than 1,000 LGBT respondents. They also report $4,000 less in debt and have $6,000 more in the bank than the average American. Their unemployment rate is .09% lower than for the rest of the population.

Although they may be more financially stable than heterosexuals, many resist one of the oldest traditions.

"A significant portion don't want to get married, because in some instances marriage will save money but in other cases there's a cost," said Brad Snyder, director of Institutional Giving with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in New York. "But the benefits that come from marriage are one of the best safe guards out there."

According to a recent TD Bank survey, 82% of individuals in relationships have a joint checking or savings account with their spouses. Regardless of marital status or gender, same sex couples may find a joint premium bank account convenient.

"Same sex couples with the ability to keep a higher balance in their bank account may benefit from choosing a premium account, which can offers non-bank ATM fee reimbursement, free official bank checks and discounts on safety deposit boxes," said Lindsay Sacknoff, head of retail deposit products and pricing with TD Bank.

When All Goes South?

However, merging finances is not for everyone especially those whose same sex marriages end in divorce.

"Have a prenuptial agreement drawn up in advance of the marriage that specifically deals with how you will divide up property and support in the event you break up," said Lori Barkus, family law attorney in Florida. "A little bit of planning ahead of time can save a lot of time, money and further heartbreak in the end."

While last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act and led to federal marital protections for same-sex couples, under current law the federal government defers to states in determining whether a marriage is valid.

"This is leading to a host of legal challenges all over the country," Barkus told MainStreet. "The attitude in many states is that if same sex marriage isn't recognized in that state then neither is same sex divorce."

Married same sex couples today are pioneers for future gay couples, setting the stage for legal challenges that divorce creates. One area that's still unclear is when married couples relocate from a state that recognizes gay marriage to a state that doesn't.

"In certain circumstances, they can return to the state where they got married to get a divorce," Barkus said. "However, this can prove to be a personal and financial hardship in that many states require at least a six-month minimum residency before granting a divorce."

Another strategy is to challenge state law and hope to find a judge who will rule in their favor.

"Divorce is part of the uncertainty that's still out there," said Robert Fishbein, vice president and corporate counsel with Prudential Financial.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 21, 2014, 04:54:07 pm
Notice they're making these rulings(as well as those siding with the pro-abortion lobby) on late Friday afternoons - which is when people go home and get ready for R&R on the weekend, and all but turn off the news. So ultimately, the masses are not seeing the destruction of America over the long haul.

1The 5:3  For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
1Th 5:4  But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1Th 5:5  Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
1Th 5:6  Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.


http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-210904633.html
Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage
3/21/14

DETROIT (AP) — Michigan's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge said Friday as he struck down a law that was widely embraced by voters a decade ago — the latest in a recent series of decisions overturning similar laws across the country.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman announced his ruling after a rare two-week trial that mostly focused on the impact of same-sex parenting on children.

There was no indication that the judge was suspending his decision. Attorney General Bill Schuette said he was immediately filing a request with a federal appeals court to suspend Friedman's decision and prevent same-sex couples from immediately marrying. The decision was released shortly after 5 p.m., when most county clerk offices in Michigan were closed. Clerks issue marriage licenses.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on gay marriage have been overturned in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.

Two Detroit-area nurses, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, want to get married, but the original purpose of their 2012 lawsuit was to overturn Michigan's ban on joint adoptions by same-sex couples.

They are raising three adopted children with special needs at their Hazel Park home. But they can't jointly adopt each other's kids because joint adoption in the state is tied exclusively to marriage.

Attorney Dana Nessel read portions of the decision on live TV at the kitchen table in the DeBoer-Rowse home.

"It's unbelievable," DeBoer said on television. "We got our day in court. We won."

Rowse, 49, and DeBoer, 42, didn't testify, and the trial had nothing to do with their relationship. In fact, attorneys for the state told the judge that they are great parents.

Instead, the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.

But experts testifying for Rowse and DeBoer said there were no differences between the kids of same-sex couples and the children raised by a man and woman. And the University of Texas took the extraordinary step of disavowing the testimony of sociology professor Mark Regnerus, who was a witness for Michigan.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 27, 2014, 08:27:14 pm
http://www.wjtv.com/story/25072933/same-sex-couples-apply-for-marriage-licenses-at-hinds-county-courthouse
3/25/14
Same Sex Couples Apply For Marriage Licenses At Hinds County Courthouse(Mississippi)

Gay rights activists who want the right to say "we do" taking a stand against a law that bans same sex marriage in Mississippi. 

After praying on the Hinds county courthouse lawn, the group known as the Campaign for Southern Equality, marched quietly into the courthouse and down to the basement.

And one by one five gay couples from all over the state walked up to the counter in the circuit clerk's office to apply for a marriage license.

As quickly as they applied, circuit clerk Barbara Dunn denied them a license, citing a state constitutional amendment that makes gay unions illegal.

"The law is the law and I took an oath to uphold the law and when it changes I will change with it," Dunn told each couple.

The marriage license denial was too much for one woman overcome with emotion that she can't marry the person she loves.

Jessica Kirkendoll, and her partner, Amber, discussed why a piece of paper is so important to them.

“Ensures us that we don't have to run to another state or go through loopholes if one of us passes away."

“It’s not just making laws because of a sin, it’s actually affecting people,” added Jeff White. He and his partner John Perkins joined four lesbians at the courthouse.

Gay marriage opponents lead by the Mississippi Baptists, argue that the Bible speaks clearly against the practice. And they believe most Mississippians agree with then. In 2010, 86 percent of those casting votes on a constitutional amendment, voted to prohibit marriage between two people of the same sex.

The group denied a marriage license at the courthouse say they will keep coming back until the law changes.         


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Kilika on March 28, 2014, 05:11:47 am
Quote
“Ensures us that we don't have to run to another state or go through loopholes if one of us passes away."

It's SO frustrating that these articles are slanted in favor of gays and how they spread lies such as this!

These heathen keep saying that "legal issue" over either one of them getting sick or dying and how THEY claim if they aren't married, they won't have the same access as a married spouse.

BULL HOCKEY!!! LIARS!!!

That is SOOO not true. Yet no one is calling them out on it. I have yet to see a single medical professional explain this. Nothing but silence, while all medical professionals know the deal. They deal with patience's relatives and friends every day, and who has access to medical info and who doesn't, regardless of marital status.

All a patient has to do is simply list with their doctor's office who has medical access. Simply write their name down on a single form and sign it, that's it. Do that with each doctor, no problem.

Want to go even legally further? Just fill out a "Medical Power of Attorney". Not even the US Supreme Court can break that, and these sodomites are running around making a scene like little drama queens.  ::)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on March 28, 2014, 09:36:34 am
Obama administration to recognize same-sex marriages in Michigan

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Friday intervened in another state legal battle over gay marriage, announcing that the federal government would recognize same-sex marriages that were recently held in Michigan.

Three-hundred same-sex couples married in Michigan over the weekend before a federal district court granted a stay to stop the weddings from being performed. Democrats in Michigan’s congressional delegation, led by Rep. Dan E. Kildee, had called on Holder to recognize the marriages as legal under federal law.

“I have determined that the same-sex marriages performed last Saturday in Michigan will be recognized by the federal government,” Holder said in a statement Friday morning. “These families will be eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-to-recognize-same-sex-marriages-in-michigan/2014/03/28/9ad9fb76-b678-11e3-b84e-897d3d12b816_story.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2014, 02:48:43 pm
Notice how all of these "pro-family"/Churchianity groups have slowly but surely stood down since 2009(when Obama became President) - ultimately, enemies have come from WITHIN, AND NOT from Obama, Clinton, the "Democrats", etc(ie-in the GOP, they have the sodomites Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud - which are now really causing a division within their own "party". I believe the latter split off recently).

It's only a matter of time before the Apostate church in America allows SSM.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 03, 2014, 11:13:31 am
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-opens-medicare-same-sex-married-couples-154710685--sector.html
Obama administration opens Medicare to same-sex married couples
4/3/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration announced on Thursday that same-sex married couples can qualify for Medicare hospital and physician benefits for the first time.

The decision, coming after a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a federal ban against same-sex marriage, allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to determine the eligibility of married gay applicants to Medicare, the federal government's healthcare program for the elderly and the disabled.

"We are working together with SSA to process these requests in a timely manner to ensure all beneficiaries, regardless of sexual orientation, are treated fairly under the law," U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.

The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)said the government has begun the enrollment process for some same-sex spouses while handling requests for special enrollment periods from others. CMS oversees the $635 billion Medicare program. But SSA determines eligibility.

"If you're in, or are a surviving spouse of, a same-sex marriage, we encourage you to apply for Medicare if you think you might be eligible," CMS said in a web posting.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 04, 2014, 12:34:00 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-end-ohio-ban-recognizing-gay-marriage-165423733.html
Judge to end Ohio ban on recognizing gay marriage
4/4/14

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal judge says he will strike down Ohio's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, meaning the state must recognize marriages of gay couples who legally wed elsewhere.

Judge Timothy Black made the statement Friday following final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban.

He says he'll issue the ruling April 14 prohibiting Ohio officials from enforcing the ban, which he says violates constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Black's ruling will not mean Ohio has to allow couples to marry there.

Attorneys for the state had argued that it's Ohio's sole province to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

By announcing his intention ahead of his ruling, Black gives time for the state to prepare an appeal that can be filed as soon as he rules.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 09, 2014, 01:57:42 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/two-moms-baby-legal-first-u-gay-marriage-124540293--finance.html
4/9/14
Two moms, a baby and a legal first for U.S. gay marriage

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - Last month a baby in Tennessee made history: Emilia Maria Jesty was the first child born in the state to have a woman listed on the birth certificate as her "father."

The marital status of the baby's parents was the subject of a flurry of court filings up to a few days before her birth. Valeria Tanco and Sophy Jesty were wed in New York, a state that recognizes gay marriage, and moved to Tennessee, which does not.

They are among scores of same-sex couples who, working with advocacy groups, have filed lawsuits to expand gay-marriage rights following a major U.S. Supreme Court decision last June allowing federal tax and other benefits for same-sex married couples.

Depending on the pace of rulings, as early as next year Tanco and Jesty's case or a similar challenge could reach the Supreme Court. Since the court's June decision in U.S. v. Windsor, about 50 such cases have been filed, in nearly all 33 states that prohibit gay marriage.

So far, the eight federal judges who have ruled citing Windsor have sided with the same-sex couples, saying the states may not treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex ones. All of those cases are on appeal.

On Thursday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will begin hearing cases involving Utah and Oklahoma. In May, the 4th Circuit will hear a dispute from Virginia.

As Tanco approached her due date, a Nashville federal judge in mid-March issued a preliminary injunction forcing Tennessee to honor their marriage. The state appealed to the 6th Circuit.

It is possible a ruling against the couple could void Emilia's birth certificate and require that it be reissued with only Tanco listed. A spokeswoman for Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper declined to comment, as did a spokesman for the state Health Department, which oversees birth certificates.

But for now, says Jesty, "It gives me strength."

URBAN AND RURAL COUPLES

About half of the cases were brought by gay-rights advocacy groups that do not charge the plaintiffs, and many of the lawyers in the other cases are working for free. As part of their legal and public relations strategy, organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights look for a broad mix: Same-sex couples from both urban and rural America, in an array of vocations and facing problems such as those arising from care of their children or an ill partner.

State attorneys general typically defend the state laws, although private lawyers have become involved too. Lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based Christian organization, are assisting in the defense of state bans in Oklahoma and Virginia and have submitted "friend of the court" briefs in other cases, including the Tennessee dispute.

Greg Scott, an Alliance spokesman, said his group seeks to counter sympathetic "micro" narratives with a "macro" argument. "What we argue is that marriage has a particular role in society as a whole," and that has historically meant only unions between a man and a woman.

Most new challenges seek a broad constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But a handful, including the Tanco case, take a more incremental approach, arguing only that states must recognize marriages from other states. Gay-rights groups say the narrower argument could sway judges in more conservative states and potentially the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in Windsor.

A VOLUNTEER IN KNOXVILLE

Tanco and Jesty became the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit after they were approached last August by Regina Lambert, a Knoxville lawyer who had been volunteering for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The advocacy group relies on a network of lawyers and other volunteers to help find plaintiffs. During a series of conference calls, Lambert and other lawyers decided to bring one of the narrower cases in Tennessee, a largely conservative state. The group separately has filed broader based lawsuits in Idaho, Wyoming and Florida.

Lambert, who teaches at the University of Tennessee law school, thought of Tanco and Jesty. She had met the couple through a friend and knew they presented a good set of facts. Even though they had a legal New York marriage, they were not entitled in Tennessee to spousal benefits.

"You want someone who is in a stable, good relationship," Lambert said. "I liked the fact that they were homeowners, too." She thought the couple would also connect with the public because they were "likeable" and professors of veterinary medicine at the University of Tennessee. At that point she did not even realize Tanco was pregnant.

Lambert learned that when she invited the couple over to her house in August to broach the idea of the lawsuit. Tanco had become pregnant through artificial insemination about two months earlier.

The couple asked for time to think. Tanco was ready to say yes right away, but Jesty hesitated. She was not sure she wanted the attention that would come from a lawsuit. But two days later they called Lambert and agreed to sign on. "This was an opportunity to make a difference," Jesty said. "How do you turn away from something like that?"

In October, they filed suit in federal court in Nashville. Two other couples, gay men, are part of the lawsuit.

The pregnancy turned out to boost their case in court, at least for now. By mid-March, the court had yet to rule, and the couple's lawyers requested a status report. Judge Aleta Trauger issued a preliminary order requiring Tennessee to recognize the marriages of the couples pending a final decision. She noted that under existing Tennessee law, Jesty would not be recognized as a parent to Tanco's child and would be unable to make certain medical decisions.

The state appealed. Two days later, on March 27, just after 4 p.m., Emilia was born, weighing eight pounds, five ounces.

Following the usual routine, a hospital employee visited Tanco's room the next day to fill out the birth certificate. Tanco said Jesty's name should be on it with hers.

At first there was confusion over whether that was possible. Lambert worked the phones. After several hours and many calls between the hospital in Knoxville and the health department in Nashville, hospital officials produced the birth certificate.

A health department spokesman said in an email that officials were not aware of any previous Tennessee case in which the names of same-sex parents were listed on the birth certificate.

The document now sits on a desk in the couple's study. "It might be something that needs to get framed," said Jesty.

(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Amy Stevens and Grant McCool)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 10, 2014, 04:14:10 am
Ohio Representative Moves to Impeach Judge for Pro-Gay Rulings

 Representative John Becker of Ohio has called to impeach a federal judge due to his recent rulings involving gay marriage. Becker says that U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black has abused his power and went against the state and federal constitution through his pro-gay decisions.

Becker’s office released a statement writing, “In an epic display of arrogance and incompetence, Judge Black announced that he will require the people of Ohio to disregard the Ohio Constitution and force the recognition of ‘homosexual marriages’ performed outside of Ohio. He persists in allowing his personal political bias to supersede jurisprudence.”

In December the judge ruled that state officials must recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates. Black has announced that his next move is to remove Ohio’s gay marriage ban, though the ban was approved by the majority of voters in 2004 reports Christian News.

Representative Becker believes Black’s actions are just cause for dismissal and has proposed a resolution of his impeachment. The resolution has not had received a hearing.

The resolution reads in part, “...the impeachment of rogue federal judges will begin the process of restoring state sovereignty to the original intent of the United States Constitution…”

Black was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/ohio-representative-moves-to-impeach-judge-for-pro-gay-rulings.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 10, 2014, 07:58:02 am
Quote
Representative John Becker of Ohio has called to impeach a federal judge due to his recent rulings involving gay marriage. Becker says that U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black has abused his power and went against the state and federal constitution through his pro-gay decisions.

Where were these people's moves to impeach Vaughn Walker, the same federal judge that struck down Prop 8 4 years ago?(which all but started getting this ball rolling to legalizing sodomy nationwide)

Oh wait - he was a Reagan/Bush appointee! >:(


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 10, 2014, 06:11:41 pm
Read this earlier today - a couple of comments here...

1) This is the first gay marriage case to go to an appellate court.

2) A ruling won't happen until several months.

3) The court is "divided"(where the "swing" guy apparently has "agreement" with "both" sides).

Pt being that this is likely another attempt by Rome to do just that - use this "social issue" to get the ecumenical movement(all religions working in one umbrella) closer.

IOW, it's the 2 minute warning, and the score is NOT close, but LOPSIDED - so ultimately, game over(in terms of the Church Age likely nearing an end).  Be ye not deceived and do NOT get into this dogfight!

http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-couples-wed-appeals-court-hears-first-123752763.html
4/10/14
Do same-sex couples have right to wed? Appeals court hears first post-DOMA case

A potential landmark case from Utah testing whether same-sex couples enjoy a constitutional right to marry arrives Thursday before a federal appeals court panel in Denver.


A potential landmark case testing whether same-sex couples enjoy a constitutional right to marry arrives Thursday before a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Denver.




Ads by saveitkeep.. More Info | Hide These Ads








Related Stories


Appeals court hears case testing gay-marriage rights Reuters
Mich. same-sex marriages 'legal but not recognized.’ How did that happen? Christian Science Monitor
Same-sex marriage: Court shoots down yet another state ban Christian Science Monitor
Stay on Michigan same-sex marriages extended for appeal Reuters
Ruling to strike down Michigan gay marriage ban put on hold Reuters

The question of same-sex marriage has divided the country, and the issue is inevitably headed to the US Supreme Court, perhaps as early as next year.

Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages. In contrast, 33 states restrict marriage to one man and one woman through bans enacted by statute or constitutional amendment.


RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about gay rights in America? Take the quiz!   

Thursday’s hour-long argument at the Tenth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver involves a challenge to a 2004 constitutional amendment in Utah banning gay marriage. It won 66 percent of the vote.

On Dec. 20, US District Judge Robert Shelby declared the Utah amendment unconstitutional. His was the first such ruling since the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a landmark decision last June.

“The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,” he ruled.

Judge Shelby said the state had no justifiable reason to treat same-sex couples differently than heterosexual couples in Utah. And the judge went substantially further. He declared that the US Constitution itself requires that Utah allow same-sex couples to marry.

If upheld by the Tenth Circuit and then the US Supreme Court, Judge Shelby’s decision would mean that every same-sex marriage restriction and ban across the country must fall.

Since the Utah decision, federal judges in Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio have issued nearly identical rulings that same-sex marriage bans in those states violate a fundamental right to marry protected by the US Constitution. All are under appeal.

In addition to hearing the Utah case Thursday, the same three-judge panel on the Tenth Circuit is set to hear an Oklahoma marriage case on April 17. The other four appeals are also underway in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits.

These cases are only the tip of a litigation iceberg involving nearly 60 lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in 27 states and Puerto Rico challenging same-sex marriage bans.

This inundation tactic is part of a national strategy by gay rights groups to flood the country with cases and build a sense of momentum and inevitability for national recognition of same-sex marriage and gay rights.

Many states and traditional marriage groups are fighting back, hoping to preserve the status quo view of marriage in their own states. They argue that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue and that it is premature for federal judges and appeals courts to opine on a US constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Supporters of the traditional definition of marriage also say that states are entitled to restrict marriage to male-female unions as long as their citizens and elected representatives deem them acceptable and appropriate.

These supporters say that if, or when, states embrace broader definitions of marriage it should come about through debate, public campaigns, and popular votes, rather than being imposed by unelected federal judges.

At its most basic, the Utah case is a fundamental test of who gets to decide how the same-sex marriage debate is to be resolved. Will it be decided by judges and justices, or by the states and voters?

Gay rights advocates insist that the right to marry is a fundamental right that all citizens enjoy. They are not asking for creation of a new constitutional right, just a broader application of the existing right, they say.

Lawyers for Utah counter that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage. They say regulation of marriage is within the traditional authority of each state to decide. Under principles of federalism, the national government has no business imposing its view in areas reserved to the states.

Rather than trying to impose a solution through the courts, they say, allowing the issue to proceed on a state-by-state basis through democratic means is more likely to result in compromise and accommodation.

“Public opinion is apparently in flux,” Washington appellate lawyer Gene Schaerr wrote in his brief to the Tenth Circuit on behalf of Utah.

“No one knows what the ultimate outcome will be, either nationally or in any given state. But the fact that different states have thus far chosen different paths is not a sign of political weakness; it is a sign of a healthy and diverse national republic,” he wrote.

The constitutional structure of government is designed in part to foster experimentation and democratic participation within the states during times of rapid social change, Mr. Schaerr said. The federal judge’s decision in Utah, if affirmed, would bring that activity to a “screeching halt,” he said.

Federal imposition of a one-size-fits-all solution, the lawyer said, would alter the balance of power between the states and the national government.

Schaerr said that such an approach would “destroy any opportunity for the kind of democratic compromise and accommodation that could otherwise ultimately produce, in each state, a peaceful and relatively harmonious resolution of what is now, in many places, a highly contentious issue.”

“The state respectfully asks this court to allow the people of Utah to choose for themselves how to strike the proper balance,” Schaerr said in his brief to the Tenth Circuit.

Lawyers for same-sex couples in Utah counter that principles of federalism do not exempt states from the requirement that they uphold the constitutional rights of their citizens.

A state’s power to legislate, adjudicate, and administer all aspects of family law are subject to scrutiny by the federal judiciary, they say.

“Even when regulating in areas that are properly subject to their regulatory authority, states must respect fundamental constitutional rights,” Kathryn Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights wrote in her brief to the Tenth Circuit.

“Indeed, the entire purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to prohibit states from exercising their traditional authority in ways that deprive their citizens of liberties guaranteed by the federal Constitution,” she added.

Ms. Kendell quoted Judge Shelby as having correctly framed the question: “The issue the court must address in this case is … not who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah’s current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution.”

Much of this posturing is based on a few paragraphs written by Justice Anthony Kennedy in last summer’s Supreme Court decision in US v. Windsor invalidating DOMA.

In that case, the court ruled 5 to 4 that the federal government had improperly intruded into the state’s traditional authority to regulate marriage. At issue was the fact that same-sex couples who had legally married in their home states were nonetheless barred under DOMA from receiving the same federal benefits as opposite-sex spouses.

The court said the federal government had to respect the decisions of the states in conferring equal status and dignity to same-sex married couples.

But what the court did not do is decide the larger, more basic question of whether same-sex couples have a right under the US Constitution to marry or whether that is a decision to be left to each state to determine.

That hasn’t stopped federal judges and lawyers on both sides of the issue from drawing from portions of Justice Kennedy’s decision in the Windsor case to support their legal arguments.

Now the task falls to a three-judge appeals court panel in Denver to assess and judge their work.

The case is Kitchen v. Herbert (13-4178).


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 16, 2014, 06:29:56 am
Judge Orders Ohio to Recognize Out-of-State Gay Marriages

 U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black ruled that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of state limits, despite a 2004 citizen vote defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

The judge was appointed to make the decision by President Barack Obama.

The ruling, which was decided Monday, means that gay couples married outside Ohio will be considered legally married, though the state has not legalized gay marriage reports Christian News.

The ruling does not require the state of Ohio to permit gay marriages.

Black’s ruling said, “Ohio’s marriage recognition bans are facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances. The record before this court...is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the state’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

“When a state effectively terminates the marriage of a same-sex couple married in another jurisdiction by refusing to recognize the marriage, that state unlawfully intrudes into the realm of private marital, family, and intimate relations specifically protected by the Supreme Court.”

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine is planning an appeal to the ruling on account of the public’s 2004 vote against expanding the definition of marriage in the state.

Governor John Kasich is in support of the appeal according to spokesman Rob Nichols.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/judge-orders-ohio-to-recognize-out-of-state-gay-marriages.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 16, 2014, 09:22:29 am
When it rains, it pours.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 17, 2014, 09:53:35 am
Oklahoma gay-marriage case before US appeals court
http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-gay-marriage-case-us-appeals-court-070515097.html
4/16/14

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Lawyers for two Oklahoma women and the county clerk who would not give them a marriage license go before a federal appeals court with a familiar question for the judges: Did the state's voters single out gay people for unfair treatment when they defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman?

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard similar issues in a Utah case last week, giving Oklahoma lawyers a preview of what questions they might face.

"Essentially, (the cases) are not that different," said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Byron Babione, who is representing Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith. "Both of them involve challenges to state marriage amendments that were passed by an overwhelming majority of the people."

Babione said Smith's legal team was encouraged by hard questions posed by the 10th Circuit judges last week, saying they seemed tailored to the argument that a state's residents have the right to define marriage how they see fit.

But lawyers for Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin might look to questions posed by U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who asked whether Utah's same-sex marriage ban was similar to Virginia's former ban on interracial marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that ban 47 years ago.

Holmes also said, however, that gay marriages are a new concept for courts to address and that perhaps it is best to defer to the democratic process unless there is a compelling reason to step in.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern of Tulsa ruled in January that Oklahoma's ban violated the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution. He immediately stayed his ruling, preventing any same-sex marriages from taking place while the ruling was appealed. In contrast, more than 1,000 gay couples in Utah married before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to issue a stay.

Kern rejected an attempt by another couple, Susan Barton and Gay Phillips, to have their California marriage recognized in Oklahoma. Kern said Barton and Phillips sued the wrong person.

The Utah and Oklahoma cases are very similar: both involve bans on same-sex marriage passed by a majority of voters in 2004 — 76 percent in Oklahoma and 66 percent in Utah — and both bans were struck down by federal judges within a month of one another in December and January. The legal arguments for and against the ban are also similar.

Baldwin said her lawyer attended last week's arguments and believes it went well.

"I think we were struck by how, frankly, it's the same old arguments they've been using all along that have been so unsuccessful," said Baldwin. "They make it sound as though there are a limited number of marriage licenses and if they start handing out marriage licenses willy-nilly to same-sex couples who can't have a child, then what is that going to do to procreation? Well, it's not going to do anything to procreation. People who still want to have children will still have children."

Alliance Defending Freedom, which also had a representative at the Utah oral arguments, left the court encouraged, Babione said.

"From our perspective, that is a good thing, because we don't think this is an issue that can be decided based on superficial sentiments, but really needs to be decided on the important government interest at stake," he said.

It's not clear when the three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit will issue its rulings. The judges will likely issue separate rulings, but they may come on the same day. The losing sides could appeal to the full 10th Circuit Court of Appeals or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 18, 2014, 10:42:26 am
A ruling won't be until several months from now - but nonetheless, they almost always tip their hand immediately...

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-asks-pointed-questions-gay-marriage-case-231403345.html
Judge asks pointed questions in gay marriage case
4/18/14

DENVER (AP) — A judge in Colorado who will play a pivotal role deciding whether gays should be allowed to wed in the United States asked pointed questions Thursday about whether Oklahoma can legally ban the unions.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes is seen as the swing vote on the three-judge panel that heard the Oklahoma appeal and a similar case from Utah last week.

The two cases are the first to reach an appellate court since the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Since then, gay rights lawyers have successfully convinced eight federal judges that the ruling means courts must strike down laws against gay marriage because they deprive same-sex couples of a fundamental right.

During Thursday's hearing before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, Holmes suggested he interpreted the Supreme Court's ruling the same way.

"The state cannot define marriage in any way that would trample constitutional rights, right?" Holmes asked Jim Campbell, the attorney representing the defendant in the case, the Tulsa County clerk.

Campbell, however, contended the court must defer to the democratic process if there is a rational reason for the state to choose who can marry and who cannot.

"The natural, procreative potential of opposite-sex couples distinguishes that group from same-sex couples," Campbell said.

With one judge strongly hinting he supported the lower court rulings that struck down the Oklahoma and Utah bans, and another appearing skeptical of them, all eyes were on Holmes to see where the panel might come down. Holmes last week said that if the yardstick is whether the state has a rational reason to single out gay couples, the same-sex plaintiffs would lose. But if the standard was any higher, they would win.

On Thursday, the judges spent most of their time either questioning Campbell or debating whether the plaintiffs sued the correct person and had legal standing for the court to intervene. The case has taken 10 years to reach this point, partly because another 10th Circuit panel in 2009 ruled the plaintiffs incorrectly sued the governor and attorney general and directed them to name a different party. The plaintiffs then sued the county clerk who denied them a marriage license.

The panel allowed the hearing to run 13 minutes over its 30-minute limit so it could further question Campbell on his arguments.

Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved that state's gay marriage ban in 2004. A federal judge in January ruled that the ban violated the constitutional rights of gays, triggering the appeal. That is almost identical to the Utah case, in which a federal judge struck down that state's 2004 voter-approved gay marriage ban in December.

Legal experts say the Oklahoma and Utah cases are almost identical, though Utah does not have the same standing issues as Oklahoma. The justices' decision likely will pivot on the level of deference they believe a court should give voters to deny a group of people the ability to marry.

It might be months before a written ruling is issued. Similar appeals are working their way through four other appellate court circuits, and it is unclear which case would next reach the Supreme Court, which likely will have the final word on the issue.

Two of the plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case, Sharon Baldwin and Mary Bishop, told reporters outside the courthouse that they wanted to marry but have made a point of trying to change the law in their home state rather than travel to one of the 17 states that permits gay marriage.

"We believe that history and justice are on our side, and that is something that no amount of tradition can overcome," Baldwin said.

Campbell told reporters he also felt the hearing went well but declined to make a prediction based on the judges' questioning.

"I don't play the game of reading judges," Campbell said. "It's a dangerous game."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 22, 2014, 10:05:28 am
Federal lawsuit challenging Georgia's constitutional ban on gay marriage filed in Atlanta - @AP


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 22, 2014, 11:05:36 am
Federal lawsuit challenging Georgia's constitutional ban on gay marriage filed in Atlanta - @AP

I think there's only like 3 or 4 states left that haven't filed suit.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 22, 2014, 11:24:39 am
I think there's only like 3 or 4 states left that haven't filed suit.

I dont think it really matters anymore, as this is a judgment from the Lord. Just having sodomites show up is Judgment. And to just embrace it? well...

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 22, 2014, 11:31:01 am
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140422/LOCAL06/304229944/-1/LOCAL11
4/22/14
Indiana Judge sees no reason for gay marriage ban

INDIANAPOLIS – A federal judge has said that attorneys defending Indiana’s gay marriage ban haven’t given a valid reason why the state should not recognize the out-of-state marriage of a lesbian couple, one of whom has a terminal illness.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young’s written order, issued Friday, outlined the rationale behind his decision earlier this month to grant Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler a temporary restraining order that bars the state from enforcing its gay marriage ban against their union.

The federal order applied only to Quasney and Sandler, even though they were part of a larger lawsuit involving several gay couples. Indiana does not recognize same-sex marriages performed inside or outside of the state.

The Munster couple had asked Indiana to recognize their marriage, which took place in Massachusetts, one of 17 states where gay marriage is legal. Quasney and Sandler have been together 13 years, and they have two daughters, ages 1 and 2, according to court records.

**I read in another article that their children are the products of "reproductive technology"(or something like that).

Quasney has Stage 4 ovarian cancer, and the couple had argued that the court should grant their request because “they have an urgent need to have their marriage recognized.” Young ordered the state on April 10 to recognize their marriage on Quasney’s death certificate when it is issued. Quasney is still alive.

In the 11-page order issued Friday, Young said he granted the request partly because the couple is likely to succeed in having Indiana’s gay marriage ban declared unconstitutional. He also said that Quasney’s terminal illness required urgent action.

“The Equal Protection Clause requires states to treat people equally under the law,” wrote Young, who was appointed in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton. “If the state wishes to differentiate between people and make them unequal, then it must have at least a legitimate purpose.”

He also said his decision was due in part to a wave of similar rulings in other states, including two that dealt with terminally ill partners.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued at the April 10 hearing in Evansville that the state has an interest in limiting marriage to couples who can have children. But Young noted in the order that the state routinely recognizes the marriages of couples who are too old to reproduce, and gay couples can form families in other ways.

He also wrote that the state’s decision to not recognize gay marriages performed out of state didn’t hold up because Indiana recognizes other marriages that take place outside of the state and violate Indiana laws, such as marriages between first cousins.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 23, 2014, 07:08:25 am
Fed. Judge Rules Ohio Must Follow Other States' Marriage Laws Instead of Its Own

So long, Ohio. According to a federal judge Monday in Henry v. Himes, the U.S. Constitution now requires that the laws of one state automatically supersede those of Ohio, whether or not Ohio approves.

The circumstances surround same-sex marriage, though the precise legal issue is one that has been flying below the radar for some time – the recognition by one state of another state’s same-sex marriage. In the case, several same-sex couples with marriage licenses from California, Massachusetts, and New York sought recognition of their relationships in their home state of Ohio, where marriage is defined as between only one man and one woman. According to Monday’s ruling, Ohio’s marriage laws are “facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances.” Thus, same-sex marriage licenses from any jurisdiction are valid in Ohio.

While the court said that Ohio is not required to issue its own marriage licenses to same-sex couples, this reservation amounts to a distinction without a difference. If same-sex couples can cross the state line, get a same-sex marriage, and then demand full recognition of their relationship upon returning home, it makes little difference whether Ohio issues licenses itself.

But is this result really required by the U.S. Constitution?

When the Supreme Court struck down DOMA last summer in the Windsor case, it struck down only the federal definition of marriage, leaving in place the sovereignty of the several states. Federal law still affirms that “[n]o State... shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State... respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex.” In other words, if your state doesn’t have same-sex marriage, your state doesn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Yet, in this ruling that Ohio must recognize same-sex marriages from other states, the court determined that this directly-applicable provision of federal law is somehow “not specifically before the Court.”

However, states have the right to be different from each other, and they do so in a whole host of ways, especially when it comes to licenses. Marriage licenses per se have never been required to be recognized in other states. The states have traditionally done so in most cases, but not always. In the Matter of the Estate of Fannie May, New York chose to recognize another state’s marriage between an uncle and niece, but acknowledged that it didn’t have to do so. In Moustafa v. Moustafa, Maryland refused to apply Egyptian law and rule that a man was lawfully married to more than one woman at the same time. Yet, in addition to concluding that same-sex marriage is somehow deeply rooted in the history and traditions of America, the court in Ohio also found a brand new federal right never before seen – an absolute “right of marriage recognition.”

Yet having a license somewhere doesn’t mean you have a license everywhere. Beyond marriage licenses, no lawyer, physician, or other licensed professional has an automatic right to practice his trade everywhere just because one state has licensed him. A Florida lawyer can’t walk into a Texas courtroom and begin practicing law, and Texas isn’t required to allow it. While courts, hospitals, and others typically grant certain privileges to out-of-state professionals, they are not required to do so.

What if we apply this ruling to the licensing of the fundamental right of gun ownership? Prepare yourselves for the Wild West. Arizona grants handgun licenses to almost anyone claiming U.S. citizenship. California has an extremely restrictive licensing law for residents only. If you apply the logic of this decision to the fundamental right to bear arms, California has no control over concealed weapons in its own state. If a citizen gets a license from Arizona, California has no choice but to accept it.

That’s not how our republic is supposed to work. No state is automatically required to submit its laws to the decisions of another or have its legislative bodies rendered politically impotent because another state does things differently. To do so destroys well settled principles of state sovereignty that all of us cherish. Regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriage, the danger associated with this expected ruling goes well beyond that passing topic and presents a clear and present danger to our constitutional republic.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/21/Fed-judge-rules-Ohio-must-follow-other-states-laws-instead-of-its-own


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 23, 2014, 07:11:53 am
Quote
So long, Ohio. According to a federal judge Monday in Henry v. Himes, the U.S. Constitution now requires that the laws of one state automatically supersede those of Ohio, whether or not Ohio approves.

Where does it say that? Oh IT DOESNT!! But what it does say is...

Quote
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That guarantees Ohio can supersede any other states laws.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 24, 2014, 11:49:50 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/23/there-are-just-4-unchallenged-state-gay-marriage-bans-soon-there-will-be-3/
4/23/14
There are just 4 unchallenged state gay marriage bans. Soon, there will be 3.

Last week, there were five state same-sex marriage bans that had yet to be challenged. On Tuesday, that number fell to four. Next week, it’s expected to drop to three.

Georgia’s ban is the latest to be challenged. Seven people filed suit against the state on Tuesday, asking a federal judge to toss out Georgia’s 2004 constitutional amendment banning such unions. That group includes a widowed woman fighting to have the marriage to her deceased spouse recognized and three couples: a pair of Atlanta police officers, co-owners of a pet day care, and a lawyer and real estate agent.

The suit was filed by Lambda Legal, a pro-gay-marriage group, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and argues that the ban violates equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment.

Before that challenge, there were 65 pending lawsuits involving marriage laws in 30 states, according to the group’s Thursday accounting of same-sex marriage ban challenges. The only other unchallenged bans were in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

South Dakota’s ban is expected to be challenged next week. That challenge will be brought by Nancy Robrahn and her partner Jen Rosenberg, who plan to wed in Minneapolis this week before immediately returning home to challenge their state’s ban by filing a name-change request. The pair hopes to challenge the ban by May 1 (next Thursday).

“We don’t want to postpone it any longer than that,” Robrahn says.

Gay marriage is now legal in 17 states, according to Lambda Legal.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 08, 2014, 09:41:14 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/murray-bill-would-force-social-security-to-pay-same-sex-spouses-survivor-benefits-220923730.html
Murray bill would force Social Security to pay same-sex spouses survivor benefits

A year after Supreme Court decision, some couples still denied benefits

5/8/14

Nearly a year ago, the nation’s highest court told the federal government that it could no longer withhold marriage benefits from tens of thousands of same-sex married couples.

But that landmark Supreme Court decision made little difference in the lives of gay couples who live in the 33 states that ban same-sex marriage.

Midori Fujii and Kristie Kay Brittain got married in California, then returned to Indiana, which bans gay marriage. When Brittain died of ovarian cancer in 2011, Fujii found out that she would not be eligible to receive her wife’s Social Security survivor benefits.

For months, the Social Security Administration has put survivor benefit applications from same-sex spouses who live in states that don’t recognize gay marriage on hold. That’s because a portion of the decades-old law says that for a spouse to be eligible for benefits, his or her marriage must be recognized in the state where the couple currently resides.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., hopes to change that with a bill she’s introducing Wednesday called the Social Security and Marriage Equality (SAME) Act of 2014, Yahoo News has learned. The measure would amend the Social Security Act to grant survivor benefits to any individual legally married anywhere in the United States, regardless of whether he or she lives in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.

It would also declare individuals who were legally married in another country eligible for Social Security survivor benefits, according to a summary of the legislation provided by her office.

“Your zip code should not determine whether or not your family will have the means to survive after the death of a spouse,” Murray said in a statement. “While I believe the Social Security Administration can, and should, resolve this inconsistency through administrative action, the SAME Act would provide a road map to ensure equality under our federal laws do not end at state lines.”

The proposal, co-sponsored by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., aims to resolve questions left by United States v. Windsor. Gay marriage is now legal in 17 states, and the Windsor decision said the federal government must acknowledge those unions for the purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and regulations that deal with spousal benefits.

But the justices provided little guidance on the question of what should happen to the tens of thousands of legally married same-sex couples who live in states that bar and do not recognize same-sex marriage. The Obama administration has implemented the decision broadly so far — allowing legally married same-sex couples to file taxes jointly no matter where they live, for example. But the administration decided to put the Social Security question on hold, pending a Justice Department review of the law. That means that same-sex spouses applying for Medicare benefits have also been told to wait for the review, since Medicare eligibility is decided by the same criteria.

“There’s no excuse for the federal government to continue withholding certain federal benefits from legally married same-sex couples," Udall said. “Marriages don’t end when couples cross state lines, and neither should the federal benefits they have earned.”

The legislation’s fate in Congress is unclear. White House officials declined to comment on the record about Murray's proposal.

Since the Windsor decision, 13 federal courts have granted injunctions to, or ruled in favor of, plaintiffs who want their same-sex marriage recognized in states that do not allow them, according to Susan Sommer of Lambda Legal. The states have appealed, arguing that being forced to recognize these unions infringes on their sovereignty.

Legislators aren’t waiting for the courts or the Obama administration to resolve the issue. Another bill, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called the Respect for Marriage Act, would repeal the remaining parts of the largely overturned 1996 Defense of Marriage Act left intact by the Supreme Court and extend Social Security survivor benefits to same-sex couples, regardless of what state they live in. Murray is a sponsor of that bill, as well.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 10, 2014, 12:21:00 pm
http://time.com/94825/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/
5/9/14
Arkansas Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on May 16, 2014, 06:08:54 am
Judge Denies Stay Request, Gay Marriage Legalized in Idaho

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/judge-denies-stay-request-gay-marriage-legalized-in-idaho.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 16, 2014, 04:29:13 pm
Judge Denies Stay Request, Gay Marriage Legalized in Idaho

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/judge-denies-stay-request-gay-marriage-legalized-in-idaho.html

The dominoes are falling...


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on May 19, 2014, 05:17:57 am
Comparing Homosexuality to Civil Rights Fight is ‘Distortion’ of History

A coalition of black pastors filed an amicus brief in court on Wednesday asking that it overturn a lower court’s decision that declared Michigan’s marriage amendment unconstitutional.

The Thomas More Law Center filed the brief on behalf of 110 African American pastors throughout Michigan and Ohio, who represent millions of Christians and other religious groups throughout the state.

As previously reported, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, nominated to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan, struck down Michigan’s same-sex ‘marriage’ ban this past March, declaring that the state’s constitutional amendment violates the federal constitution.

“Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage,” he wrote. “Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”

Voters in Michigan had passed a marriage amendment in 2004 that made it unlawful to conduct or recognize same-sex “marriages” in the state. It was passed with 59 percent of the vote, or nearly 2.7 million ballots cast in the favor of the measure.

“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” the amendment read.

As Friedman’s ruling was appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the coalition of black pastors was formed to speak out in support of the state’s marriage amendment and unite in an effort to overturn Friedman’s ruling. The brief filed with the court on Wednesday condemned the comparison of homosexual behavior to black civil rights.

“The fact that American media or other factions erroneously characterize the traditional meaning of ‘marriage’ as being on par with the civil rights deprivations of Black Americans does not make it so,” it stated. “Comparing the dilemmas of same-sex couples to the centuries of discrimination faced by Black Americans is a distortion of our country’s cultural and legal history.”

The pastors said that one’s racial background is a completely different issue from a person’s sexual activities.

“A person’s sexuality and sexual preferences, however, are not their state of being, or even an immutable aspect of who they are, as race is,” they asserted. “The truth of the matter is that it is merely activity in which they engage. The state has no responsibility to promote any person’s sexual proclivities, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise.”

The coalition argued that states have a right to refuse to recognize relationships—including those between consenting adults—that are immoral.

“All states routinely require certain qualifications to obtain a marriage license and disallow certain individuals who do not meet those qualifications,” the pastors said. “States discriminate against first cousins, for example, by not allowing them to marry. States discriminate against bigamists, polygamists, and polyamorists in the licensing of marriage, and it is within the states’ right to do so.”

The pastors also held a rally on Wednesday at First Baptist World Changers International Church in Detroit to express their solidarity over the matter.

“We say to the judge: we believe in marriage as it has been and as it should be,” Pastor Lawrence Glass, president of the Council of Baptist Pastors, declared, according to USA Today.

“We love everybody, but we don’t love [every kind of] lifestyle,” Pastor Rex Evans of Free Will Baptist Church in Ypsilanti, Michigan said. “[There's a] small group of people trying to destroy the foundation [of America]. It’s time to take our nation back.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/05/18/black-pastors-comparing-homosexuality-to-civil-rights-fight-is-distortion-of-history/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 19, 2014, 02:36:42 pm
Federal Judge Strikes Down Oregon's Gay Marriage Ban @Huffington Post


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on May 20, 2014, 01:48:54 pm
Federal judge strikes down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage - @NBCNews


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 20, 2014, 01:56:23 pm
Federal judge strikes down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage - @NBCNews

Weren't they supposed to give a ruling on this several months ago?

It seems like all of these rulings have come at unexpected times - some, for example, on late Friday afternoons when people are going home and getting ready for recreation on the weekend(when they have their tvs and radios turned off).


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 20, 2014, 06:46:00 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/utah-ordered-recognize-over-1-144320382.html

Utah ordered to recognize over 1,000 gay marriages
Judge orders Utah to recognize gay marriages from before Supreme Court stay, grant benefits

5/20/14

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- When Matthew Barraza and Tony Milner's 5-year-old son starts kindergarten next fall, both of his fathers could finally be recognized as his legal parents.

A federal judge on Monday ordered Utah officials to recognize more than 1,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the state before the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency stay. If the rulings stands after a 21-day hold the judge placed on it, the state would be required to lift its freeze on benefits requested by gay couples.

Barraza and Milner married in December and have a pending request to have Milner recognized as a legal parent of their son, Jesse, who currently is only Barraza's son under the law.

"We're ecstatic," Barraza said. "It's something that is really good for us and our family."

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of four couples, including Barraza and Milner, who said the state's decision to freeze benefits for same-sex couples violated their rights.

The gay and lesbian couples married after a federal judge overturned Utah's same-sex marriage ban Dec. 20. Those weddings came to a halt Jan. 6 when the Supreme Court granted the stay.

Utah officials argued that they had no choice but to hold off on benefits until an appeals court rules on same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball disagreed in his ruling Monday, saying Utah's decision to freeze all benefits put the couples in an unacceptable legal limbo regarding adoptions, child care and custody, medical decisions and inheritance, among other things.

"These legal uncertainties and lost rights cause harm each day that the marriage is not recognized," Kimball wrote.

He stayed his ruling three weeks to give the state an opportunity to appeal the ruling to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The ruling has no bearing on a decision pending from that court about the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban that Utah voters passed in 2004.

Marty Carpenter, spokesman for Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, said in a statement that the state is reviewing the ruling, evaluating options and determining how this relates to other pending cases.

The conservative Sutherland Institute of Utah decried the ruling in a statement, saying it gives too much merit to a "novel ruling" by one judge.

"Our system is weaker when judicial gamesmanship is not kept in check," said Bill Duncan, the institute's director of the center for family and society. "We trust the 10th Circuit will do that quickly."

In issuing the freeze in early January, Gov. Gary Herbert told state agencies to hold off on any new benefits for the couples until the courts resolve the issue. Agencies were told not to revoke anything already issued, such as a driver's license with a new name, but were prohibited from approving any benefits.

The state tax commission announced, however, that newly married gay and lesbian couples can jointly file tax returns for 2013.

The state has made clear it was not ordering agencies to void the marriages, saying instead that validity of the marriages will ultimately be decided by the 10th Circuit. The court heard arguments in Utah's case in early April, and a ruling is expected soon.

John Mejia, legal director for the ACLU in Utah, called Monday's ruling thorough and well-reasoned, and said he expects to withstand any challenge. The ACLU argued that the marriages performed during the 17-day window when gay marriage was legal are valid no matter what the appeals court rules.

"It's nice to see our relationships recognized with such compassion," said Marina Gomberg, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit along with her wife, Elenor Heyborne.

But the legal limbo isn't completely over.

On Friday, the Utah Supreme Court ordered a temporary halt of several district judges' orders requiring the state health department to issue birth certificates in adoptions by same-sex parents.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 21, 2014, 03:46:18 pm
Now it's official - the entire Northeast legalizes SSM.

http://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-wont-appeal-same-sex-marriage-case-190317250.html
5/21/14
Pennsylvania won't appeal same-sex marriage case

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The governor said Wednesday that he will not appeal a court ruling that struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban, allowing a growing number of couples to proceed with their wedding plans.

Gov. Tom Corbett's decision means that same-sex marriage will remain legal in Pennsylvania, without the threat that a higher court will reinstate the ban.

"The case is extremely unlikely to succeed on appeal," Corbett said in a statement. "Therefore, after review of the opinion and on the advice of my commonwealth legal team, I have decided not to appeal."

At an unrelated public event in Pittsburgh on Wednesday, Corbett declined to discuss his decision. He said he has personal feelings about the issue, but "I'm going to keep it to myself."

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge John Jones III struck down a 1996 state law banning recognition of gay marriage, calling it unconstitutional. One widow, 11 couples and one couple's teenage daughters had sued.

Corbett's decision goes against the Republican governor's personal beliefs. He opposes same-sex marriage and supported thus-far unsuccessful efforts to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

"As a Roman Catholic, the traditional teaching of my faith has not wavered," Corbett said in the statement. "I continue to maintain the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. My duties as governor require that I follow the laws as interpreted by the courts and make a judgment as to the likelihood of a successful appeal."

Corbett, who is seeking re-election this year facing poor public approval ratings, has sought in recent months to move to the political center and away from staunchly conservative positions on several hot-button issues.

In October, he took heat for comparing the marriage of same-sex couples to the marriage of a brother and sister.

Pennsylvania is the 19th state to recognize same-sex marriages and the last northeastern U.S. state to do so. Hundreds of gay couples rushed to apply for marriage licenses after Jones' ruling Tuesday.

The lead lawyers in the case, Witold J. Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union and Mark Aronchick, cheered the governor's decision.

"We applaud the governor for letting the constitutional principles of freedom and equality ring throughout Pennsylvania by allowing loving same-sex couples to marry," they said in a statement. "As the judge noted, we are a better people than the marriage ban and the governor's historic decision not to appeal will be an enduring legacy."

The Harrisburg-based gay rights group Equality PA thanked Corbett.

"Words cannot express what this means to the loving couples and families in Pennsylvania who have waited so long to be recognized," executive director Ted Martin said in a statement. "Marriage matters to all families, and we rejoice with them today."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 22, 2014, 10:05:00 am
http://news.yahoo.com/legal-fights-over-gay-marriage-spread-across-us-074548374.html
Legal fights over gay marriage spread across US
5/22/14

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A federal lawsuit filed by four gay couples in Montana leaves just two states — North Dakota and South Dakota — with gay marriage bans and no legal challenges aiming to overturn them. But that's likely to change as same-sex marriage advocates there gear up for a fight.

State marriage bans have been falling around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Now, in 29 states, judges are being asked whether gays should have the right to marry.

"At this point, I don't think that it matters, whether you're first or last. I don't think it matters at all. I think what matters is that we're all sending a message to either the Supreme Court or the legislators in Washington, D.C., that this has got to stop," Nancy Rosenbrahn of Rapid City, South Dakota, told The Associated Press Wednesday.

She and Jennie Rosenbrahn married in April in Minneapolis, and plan to sue in South Dakota to overturn that state's gay marriage ban.

In 19 states and the District of Columbia, gay couples can already wed, with Oregon and Pennsylvania becoming the latest to join the list this week when federal judges struck down their bans and officials decided not to appeal.

Here's a look at where things stand with other legal challenges across the country:

___

Arkansas

A state judge in Arkansas' largest county earlier this month struck down the state's gay marriage ban, saying the state has "no rational reason" for preventing gay couples from marrying. The state Supreme Court brought the marriages to a halt and is weighing state officials' appeal.

Idaho

State officials announced this week they will appeal last week's decision from a federal judge overturning the state's same-sex marriage ban. The appeal goes to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Indiana

State attorneys have asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to review a federal judge's recent order requiring Indiana to recognize the out-of-state marriage of a lesbian couple in which one woman is terminally ill. That ruling applies just to one couple — not to others who were legally wed elsewhere and are seeking to have Indiana recognize their marriages.

Kentucky

After a federal judge ordered Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, attorney general Jack Conway said he would not defend the state's law. But, the state has hired outside attorneys to handle the case and is appealing to 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which has not yet scheduled a hearing.

Michigan

The 6th Circuit is reviewing Michigan's same-sex marriage ban that was overturned by a federal judge in March following a rare trial that mostly focused on the impact of same-sex parenting on children. Arguments have not been scheduled.

Nevada

Eight gay couples are challenging Nevada's voter-approved 2002 ban that was upheld by a federal judge in 2012. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco hasn't scheduled arguments yet. Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is refusing to defend the ban.

Ohio

The 6th Circuit appeals court is reviewing two gay marriage cases from Ohio. The first involves recognizing gay marriages on death certificates, and the second involves an order for Ohio to recognize all out-of-state marriages. Arguments have not been scheduled in either case.

Tennessee

A federal judge ordered the state to recognize three same-sex couples' marriages while their lawsuit against the state works through the courts. Tennessee officials are appealing the preliminary injunction to the 6th Circuit.

Texas

A federal judge declared the state's ban unconstitutional, issuing a preliminary injunction. The state is appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans.

Utah and Oklahoma

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is reviewing same-sex marriage bans that were overturned by federal court judges in these two states. The appeals court heard arguments on both cases in April, and a ruling is expected soon. Utah and Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly passed the bans in 2004.

Virginia

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond heard arguments this month about Virginia's overturned ban and is expected to rule soon. Virginia's attorney general, Mark Herring, is one of seven in the country who has refused to defend a state gay marriage ban. A county clerk who was sued in Virginia is defending the ban.

Other states with court cases demanding recognition of gay marriage are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Most lawsuits challenge same-sex marriage bans or ask states to recognize gay marriages from other states.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 22, 2014, 10:15:35 am
http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-supreme-court-already-tipped-hand-same-100212017--politics.html
Constitution Check: Has the Supreme Court already tipped its hand on same-sex marriage?
5/22/14

Lyle Denniston looks at the only guidance so far from the Supreme Court about a recent slew of same-sex marriage cases – and why some assumptions about the two-sentence order may be premature.

“This year, the United States Supreme Court has granted a stay in a case where the trial court declared a state’s marriage law unconstitutional.   See Herbert v. Kitchen…The Supreme Court grants a stay if there is a ‘fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below’…Thus, as a matter of law, the Supreme Court has already indicated the likelihood that the Supreme Court will ultimately affirm state marriage laws [that ban same-sex unions].
– Excerpt from a legal motion filed in the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 12, seeking a delay of a state judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The state Supreme Court granted the request, while it considers an appeal.

“I believe that the Supreme Court, in Herbert v. Kitchen, has virtually instructed courts of appeals to grant stays in the circumstances before us today….The Supreme Court’s two-sentence order…provides a clear message – the Court (without noted dissent) decided that district court injunctions against the application of laws forbidding same-sex unions should be stayed at the request of state authorities pending court of appeals review”

– U.S. Circuit Court Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz of Phoenix, explaining in an opinion on Tuesday why he reluctantly decided that he had no choice but to agree to postpone the opportunity of same-sex couples in Idaho to begin to get married under a federal trial judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on such marriages.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

The Supreme Court has assigned itself the task of being “supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution,” and it said that dominant role is “a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.” That’s the way it put it in a 1958 opinion in a major school desegregation case from Little Rock, Ark., Cooper v. Aaron.   But what happens if the Justices take an action, and don’t explain themselves fully? Since it is a court of law, and not the Delphic Oracle, people are not supposed to have to guess at what its rulings mean.

But, for months now, judges and lawyers across the nation have been trying to figure out the significance of a simple order that the Justices issued on January 6, in a Utah same-sex marriage case. And the meaning of that order has become very significant for thousands of same-sex couples, who have won a right to get married in court after court, and yet are usually not able to take advantage of that right. Similarly, judges and lawyers are kept in a state of continuing uncertainty about when clerks’ offices can open to begin issuing marriage licenses, and about what happens to same-sex marriages that do occur when a brief moment of opportunity opened for that – as it did in Utah last winter.

It will be months before the same-sex marriage issue reaches the Justices, and until that happens, no one can be sure how the constitutional issue will be decided when the court takes on the chore of resolving it.   Since its ruling last June striking own parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (U.S. v. Windsor), which provided what has turned out to be a clear opening for judge after judge to strike down states’ same-sex marriage bans, the court has had only one thing to say. That was its January 6, two-sentence order in Herbert v. Kitchen, which did one thing for certain: it temporarily stopped same-sex marriages in Utah (but not before 1,300 same-sex couples got married).

To set the scene for that action, one needs to know at least a little bit about a legal process that no doubt is quite unfamiliar to most Americans: the process for delaying a court ruling. When a court issues a decision, it has to be put into effect, and that usually is done by a separate court order. But if such a decision is going to be appealed by the losing party, the issue often arises whether the court will put its ruling on hold (“stay” it, in legal parlance) to allow time to appeal.

In Utah, a federal judge struck down the ban on same-sex marriages. That judge, and then a federal appeals court, refused requests by state officials to delay the ruling, and same-sex marriages began across the state. But the state went to the Supreme Court, and got a delaying order. It was clear enough, on what the court had intended to do: it postponed the judge’s ruling and said the delay would last until an appeals court had ruled on the state’s appeal.

But, in view of subsequent developments, saying that much was not enough. On both sides of the courthouse struggles over same-sex marriage, lawyers are reading into the order in Herbert v. Kitchen what they can do help their clients, and judges are straining to get some guidance from it. Whatever was in the minds of the Justices, however, is entirely unknown.

The legal standards for postponing a decision do include the issue of whether the challenger to a ruling is likely to win on an appeal. But there are other standards, too: Who is likely to be hurt, if anybody, if the ruling is not blocked? Who, if anybody, will be hurt if it is blocked? And, what is in “the public interest”?

There is no way to know which of those questions the Supreme Court sought to answer in its unexplained order of delay. One thing is clear: it certainly did not decide who will win when it actually takes on, for real, the constitutional question of same-sex marriage.   Before issuing a decision of such importance the court would go through the full process of formal review, and then decide in an opinion that (hopefully) would spell out all the reasons for the result.

Lawyers, of course, cannot be blamed for trying to wring out of an unexplained court order as much as they can to aid their clients. And judges cannot be blamed for trying to read between the lines of such an order in order to help them decide what to do in a case before them.

What may be frustrating, all around, is that the Supreme Court has no duty to explain itself, especially in issuing the kind of order that emerged in the Utah case.   And it would take time away from other, perhaps more pressing chores, to write out an opinion.   But doing so might well provide needed guidance on what the court expects to happen when it rules in that way. When it does not, it is anybody’s guess what was expected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IOW, more mumble-jumble Hegelian Dialectic talk - 4 years ago when a federal judge struck down CA's SSM ban, he himself ordered a stay(delay) until the upper courts made a ruling. Ultimately, if anything, in the case with Utah where they had to go all the way up to the USSC to get a stay, all it did was cause MORE CONFUSION.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 24, 2014, 08:49:34 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-battle-could-head-north-dakota-230703892.html
Gay marriage battle could head to North Dakota
5/23/14

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — As North Dakota's ban on gay marriage awaits an almost inevitable legal challenge, leaders in the conservative state must decide whether to spend some of its vast oil riches on a court fight — a step they already took to defend another divisive social policy.

**That's what I was thinking recently - maybe, just maybe the agenda behind all of these states since 2010 to pass these abortion-restriction laws is just that...to put everyone's attention to this, and AWAY from the sodomy fight. And like I was saying in other threads - in Texas, Wendy Davis is getting TONS of publicity, but Houston's sodomite mayor has quietly slipped under the radar.

And for that matter too - these anti-abortion bills these states are passing are nothing but COMPROMISE bills!


Six same-sex couples sued South Dakota this week over that state's ban, leaving North Dakota as the only state not currently facing a lawsuit against its prohibition on gay weddings. Advocates for overturning the ban say it's a question of when, not if, one is filed.

And, considering the riches of the state's oil boom, North Dakota could be ready for the battle.

Tom Freier, a former state legislator and the executive director of the North Dakota Family Alliance, which campaigned to bring the same-sex marriage issue to the ballot in 2004, told The Associated Press he is "very comfortable that our attorney general would appeal that."

A spokeswoman said North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem wasn't available for comment Friday.

Last year at Stenehjem's request, North Dakota lawmakers allocated $400,000 to launch what could be a lengthy court battle over the state's new anti-abortion laws, including one that bans abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected — as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Records show that the state has spent $234,597 defending new abortion laws, including $154,749 on the fetal heartbeat measure.

"In general, I think our state has shown really a strong preference for where we are on some of these cultural issues. The issues of life, the issues of marriage ...," Freier said.

More than 7 out of 10 North Dakota voters backed a constitutional amendment in 2004 banning same-sex weddings. Now every other state with such a ban has been sued— the latest, neighboring South Dakota on Thursday.

But some officials say the opposition to same-sex marriage in North Dakota isn't as strong as it used to be.

Karyn Hippen, the mayor of Thompson, a town of fewer than 1,000 residents, became the first North Dakota mayor to join a national coalition of municipal leaders who support same-sex weddings. Hippen said although a large majority of voters favored the constitutional ban, she believes attitudes have changed.

"I think at the heart of North Dakota, there's more of a general consensus of equality and fairness," Hippen said.

Even if North Dakota doesn't get into a legal battle over gay marriage, the state's ban could be affected by the South Dakota lawsuit.

Dale Carpenter, a constitutional law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said Friday a broad ruling by the 8th Circuit Court on a South Dakota case could overturn North Dakota's law. He also said the issue of gay marriage is very likely to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, making a lawsuit in North Dakota more of a symbolic gesture.

"It's almost a formality to file a lawsuit against North Dakota at this point," he said
.

Mara Morken Fogarty, a Minnesota resident who works on a board that provides resources to LGBT people in an area that includes Fargo, North Dakota, said it's a step worth taking.

"What seemed doubtful just a few weeks ago seems possible now," said Morken Fogarty, who married her partner in August when same-sex marriage became legal in Minnesota.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 27, 2014, 07:12:16 pm
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/where-same-sex-marriage-stands-50-states-n109966
(http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_21/463201/updated_same_sex_marriage_map_4d530a47c0656b983c87eea780e6b693.nbcnews-ux-720-400.jpg)



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 28, 2014, 12:57:32 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/28/3441950/scott-walker-marriage-equality/
5/28/14
Wisconsin Governor Backs Down From Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage

Wisconsin may be one of the next states to have its ban on same-sex marriage overturned, but Gov. Scott Walker (R), who faces a tight race for reelection this year, isn’t sure he’d agree with such a ruling. In an interview on Friday, Walker said he didn’t know if the ban violates the U.S. Constitution, despite having been one of its chief advocates.

“Any federal judge has got to look at that law not only with respect to the state’s constitution but what it means in terms of the U.S. Constitution, as well,” he explained. “Again, I’m not going to pretend to tell a federal judge in that regard what he or she should do about it.”

Walker’s office did not immediately reply to a ThinkProgress request for comment about whether he believes banning same-sex marriage is constitutional or whether his personal position on the issue had changed. He has previously claimed that Wisconsin’s ban offers a “healthy balance” of LGBT rights, but he also believes conservatives have lost the fight against marriage equality.

Walker’s side-stepping seems to parallel that of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R), who decided not to appeal last week’s decision by a federal judge overturning Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage. Both Walker and Corbett face challenging races to keep their seats this year and voter bases that have shifted on this particular issue. A new poll shows that 55 percent of Wisconsin voters support marriage equality.

There may also be 2016 presidential prospects for Walker, which could suggest he’s stepping back from social issues, as former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum seems to be doing. Despite his storied history of speaking out against marriage equality, Santorum offered no response to last week’s ruling in Pennsylvania, which was handed down by a federal judge whose nomination he supported. Walker may be similarly softening on social positions to make himself more palatable to voters nationwide.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 29, 2014, 04:51:30 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/hatch-gay-marriage-become-law-land-231348643.html;_ylt=A0SO81bsqodTcz0AoxtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0cHZwMmVqBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1JDRjAwOV8x
5/28/14
Hatch: gay marriage will become law of the land

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch conceded Wednesday it's only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal across the country, even though he doesn't think that's the right way to go.

Hatch said people who can't see what's happening aren't living in the real world. He made the remarks during an appearance on KSL-Radio's Doug Wright Show (http://bit.ly/1koFdlh).

"Let's face it: anybody who does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn't been observing what's going on," said Hatch, a seven-term Republican senator who has been a proponent of keeping marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.

He said he doesn't agree with the string of pro-gay marriage rulings, but defended two Utah judges who issued such decisions. Hatch said Robert Shelby and Dale Kimball are both excellent federal judges. Hatch recommended both for the bench — Shelby in 2011 and Kimball in 1997.

"How do you blame the judge for deciding a case in accordance with what the Supreme Court has already articulated?" Hatch said.

His only criticism of Shelby was that he didn't immediately put his ruling on hold when he struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban in December. More than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay more than two weeks later. The case is before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Gay rights activists have won 14 lower court cases since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last summer. Gay and lesbian couples currently can marry in 19 states and the District of Columbia, with Oregon and Pennsylvania being the latest states to join the list.

Hatch also questioned whether judges should be able to tell states how to handle an important matter like marriage.

He said he believes nobody should suffer discrimination, and said religious people should try to understand other people's beliefs.

The former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee predicted the Supreme Court would take a gay marriage case in 2015.

"Sooner or later gay marriage is probably going to be approved by the Supreme Court of the United States, and certainly as the people in this country move toward it, especially young people," Hatch said. "I don't think that's the right way to go, on the other hand, I do accept whatever the courts have to say."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 04, 2014, 04:37:13 pm
High Court refuses to block Oregon gay marriage
6/4/14
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/high-court-refuses-block-oregon-gay-marriage

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to halt same-sex weddings in Oregon while a federal appeals court considers whether a group opposed to gay marriage can intervene in the case.

The order follows an emergency appeal by the National Organization for Marriage that seeks to overturn U.S. District Judge Michael McShane's May 19 ruling that declared Oregon's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The group had unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the lower court proceeding after Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum declined to defend the same-sex ban.

The group filed its request with Justice Anthony Kennedy and he referred it to the full court, which denied the request without comment.

Hundreds of same-sex couples have obtained marriage licenses since McShane's order, including 245 in Multnomah County, which includes Portland.

The Oregon case differs from others where the justices have blocked same-sex unions while appeals work their way through the courts. In Oregon, the appeal is focused on whether an outside group can intervene in the case, not on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban. The state has said it won't appeal McShane's ruling and had asked the justices to refuse the request.

"We are delighted that the court has rejected NOM's attempt to derail marriage equality in Oregon," said David Fidanque, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, which represented two of the four gay and lesbian couples who challenged the marriage ban. "We are confident that marriage equality in Oregon will help pave the way for marriage equality nationwide."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 05, 2014, 07:19:48 pm
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-06-04/news/os-judge-denies-liberty-counsel-20140604_1_gay-marriage-ban-liberty-counsel-zabel
6/4/14
Judge denies motion to join defense of gay marriage ban
June 4, 2014|By Jeff Kunerth, Orlando Sentinel

A Miami judge has denied a motion from the Maitland-based Liberty Counsel to join the defense of Florida's Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled that three organizations represented by the Liberty Counsel had no legal standing to join Miami-Dade Clerk of Court Harvey Ruvin in a lawsuit filed by six South Florida gay couples.

The couples contend the state ban on gay marriage, passed by Florida voters in 2008, violates their rights under the federal Constitution.

Zabel said the anti-gay groups, including Orlando attorney John Stemberger's Florida Family Action Inc., would not be directly affected by a ruling that upholds or overturns the same-sex ban.

"The validity of their own marriages will not be affected. The judgment in this case will not order them to do or refrain from doing anything. It will not have any legal impact upon them," Zabel wrote in her Tuesday ruling.

The judge's ruling was applauded by gay rights organizations.

"We are excited and looking forward to our day in court on July 2 when hopefully Florida will join the parade of states granting those rights to its gay and lesbian citizens," said Orlando attorney Mary Meeks, who argued against the motion.

The anti-gay groups argued that because they were instrumental in the passage of Amendment 2, they had a right to defend it in court. Zabel rejected that contention, saying they had no more at stake in the amendment than any other citizen in Florida.

Zabel did rule that the groups represented by the Liberty Counsel could file amicus briefs and argue those points in the hearing.

Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver could not be reached for comment, but has said in the past that he welcomes opportunity to present his arguments through amicus briefs.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 06, 2014, 05:39:23 pm
Again, they do this on a late Friday when everyone is pretty much ready to go home for the weekend and focus on R&R activities.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban-210108142.html
6/6/14
Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge struck down Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage on Friday, ruling it unconstitutional.

It wasn't clear whether U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb's 88-page ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin immediately. But the ruling makes Wisconsin the 27th state where same-sex couples can marry under law or where a judge has ruled they ought to be allowed to wed.

County clerks in Milwaukee and Madison said they had just learned of the decision and were trying to figure out if and when they could begin issuing marriage licenses. Milwaukee County Clerk Joe Czarnezki said he was keeping his office open while an attorney reviewed the decision in case he could begin accepting marriage licenses Friday evening.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in February on behalf of four gay couples, then later expanded to eight, challenging Wisconsin's constitutional ban on gay marriage. Messages left with ACLU's attorneys were not immediately returned Friday.

A spokeswoman for Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, whose office defended the law in court, did not immediately return a message.

The lawsuit alleged that Wisconsin's ban violates the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, asserting the prohibition deprives gay couples of the legal protections that married couples enjoy simply because of their gender.

State marriage bans have been falling around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In May, Czarnezki and Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell said they had trained additional staff to issue marriage licenses and worked with the chief judge to have judges on hand to perform ceremonies.

Wisconsin has a five-day waiting period between the application for and issuing of marriage licenses. County clerks can waive the waiting period at their discretion as long as applicants pay a $25 fee.

Czarnezki and McDonell have said it wasn't unusual to waive the waiting period for service members and others with special circumstances, and they would do so for gay couples who pay the fee.

Voters amended the Wisconsin Constitution in 2006, to outlaw gay marriage or anything substantially similar. The state has offered a domestic partner registry that affords gay couples a host of legal rights since 2009, but its future is in doubt; the conservative-leaning Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently weighing whether it violates the constitution.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 Republican candidate for president, has a long history of opposing gay marriage and Wisconsin's 2009 domestic registry law. But in recent months he's avoided talking directly about the state's ban, which he supported, saying it's an issue that needs to be decided by the courts and state voters who can amend the constitution.

Walker's likely Democratic challenger in the governor's race, Mary Burke, supports legalizing gay marriage.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 06, 2014, 05:43:08 pm
Lawsuit filed to block nation's last unchallenged same-sex marriage ban in North Dakota @AP


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 13, 2014, 02:40:47 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/u-law-firms-flock-gay-marriage-proponents-shun-110653841--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBEiRpTZpTOVIAt_bQtDMD
U.S. law firms flock to gay-marriage proponents, shun other side
6/10/14

 (Reuters) - As U.S. lawsuits seeking gay-marriage rights move toward a likely showdown at the Supreme Court next year, major law firms are rushing to get involved — but only on the side of the proponents.

A Reuters review of more than 100 court filings during the past year shows that at least 30 of the country's largest firms are representing challengers to state laws banning same-sex marriage. Not a single member of the Am Law 200, a commonly used ranking of the largest U.S. firms by revenue, is defending gay marriage prohibitions.

These numbers and interviews with lawyers on both sides suggest that the legal industry has reached its Mozilla moment. The software company's CEO, Brendan Eich, resigned in April after being denounced by gay marriage supporters for a donation he had made in support of California's since-overturned gay marriage ban. Now in a similar vein, attorneys at major law firms are getting the message that if they want to litigate against gay marriage they should do so elsewhere.

Earlier this year Gene Schaerr, a partner at Winston Strawn in Washington, D.C., quit the 850-lawyer firm so he could represent his home state, Utah, in its defense of a ban on same-sex marriage. Schaerr, a Mormon, told colleagues in an email that became public that he was following his "religious and family duty." Schaerr declined to comment, as did a Winston Strawn spokeswoman.

Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 of the 50 U.S. states, and in the District of Columbia. Last June, in the milestone U.S. v. Windsor case, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of federal benefits. Emboldened by that decision, gay and lesbian couples have launched at least 70 lawsuits calling for a broader right, and three cases have been heard by federal appeals courts.

PRO BONO PROGRAMS

In many of the cases, law firms filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of allies including gay-rights groups, law professors and big companies such as Amazon , Google and Starbucks . In some cases, big law firms have made a larger commitment and are representing parties to the litigation. Virtually all are working for free or at cut rates as part of their "pro bono" programs to provide legal services they deem to be in the public interest.

The 850-lawyer firm Akin Gump, for example, sued the state of Texas last year on behalf of two same-sex couples and has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the appeals cases testing Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia bans. The firm said it has donated at least 1,100 hours so far in the litigation.

States defending gay marriage bans are represented by state government lawyers, but some have also turned to outside counsel. According to the Reuters review, the private attorneys who have signed up to represent states or are backing allied groups with friend-of-the-court briefs are predominantly from religious and conservative organizations, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Beckett Fund, or are from small law firms.

Several lawyers opposed to same-sex marriage rights said they believed big firms would not litigate for that side even if attorneys asked to do so. They pointed to the example of Mozilla's Eich as an example of the pressures being faced.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the group that defended California's ban when it was challenged by same-sex couples, said he considered big firms when searching for someone to argue the case. In at least one situation, Pugno said, a lawyer at a big firm was interested but partners refused to let him take on the work. He declined to identify the person or firm.

“I personally know many good lawyers in large firms who ... are terrified of speaking out even within their own firms,” said Pugno, who has a small firm near Sacramento, Calif. He declined to name any.

THE CLEMENT EPISODE

Opponents of gay marriage also referred to Paul Clement, the prominent Washington, D.C., litigator who quit his law firm, King & Spalding, in 2011 after it withdrew as counsel for a congressional group defending the federal law that defined marriage as between a man and woman.

In his resignation letter, which was made public, Clement said he acted "out of the firmly-held belief that representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do." Clement now works at a small firm.

Law firms are also sensitive to an annual "corporate equality" index published by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group. It awards points for such factors as benefits to same-sex partners and support for gay-marriage litigation, and docks those who oppose it. Most law firms get "100%" ratings, but in its 2011 index Human Rights Campaign rated the 900-lawyer firm Foley & Lardner "85%" and dropped it to “60%” the following year. Explaining its ratings in accompanying literature, the group said Foley & Lardner had chosen to represent “clearly discriminatory clients.

During that period, the firm represented a group, National Organization for Marriage, that challenged the District of Columbia’s law allowing gay unions. The case failed, and the representation ended. In its next report, for 2013, the Human Rights Campaign raised the firm's rating to "100%." A Foley & Lardner spokeswoman declined to comment on the episode.

"Fear is a healthy motivator to do the right thing,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. “I’m not suggesting that the other side shouldn’t have attorneys. I’m saying we’re going to judge those attorneys."

Lawyers at major firms working for gay marriage say they feel a societal obligation. There is a "desire to advance an extremely important equality issue," said Kimberly Parker, chair of the pro bono committee at WilmerHale, a 1000-lawyer firm that filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a gay-rights advocacy group in the Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia cases.

At WilmerHale, as at many firms, pro bono projects are typically proposed by individual lawyers and then screened primarily for possible conflicts of interest with existing clients.

Some law firms also say their efforts can be good for business, particularly when it comes to relations with corporate clients that have internal policies supporting gay rights, and in efforts to recruit young lawyers.

Theodore Olson, a partner at Gibson Dunn, argued against Virginia's marriage ban in May and has advocated for gay marriage since he and another top litigator, David Boies, challenged California's Proposition 8 in 2009.

Before that, Olson was best known for arguing on behalf of conservatives in major Supreme Court cases such as the one in 2000 that allowed George W. Bush to take the White House and the 2010 decision striking down major campaign-finance regulations in the Citizens United case.

Now, he says, potential recruits see him differently. “I had no idea how popular I would be on law school campuses,” he said, adding jokingly: “All of sudden, the monster I was from Bush v. Gore and Citizens United is gone.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 15, 2014, 02:57:30 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/losing-streak-lengthens-foes-gay-marriage-163044575.html
Losing streak lengthens for foes of gay marriage
6/15/14

For foes of same-sex marriage, their losing streak keeps growing. Some sense a lost cause, others vow to fight on.

On Election Day in 2012, they went 0-for-4 on state ballot measures. A year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages. And over the past seven months, more than a dozen federal and state judges have struck down part or all of state-level bans on gay marriage, with no rulings going the other way.

Faced with these developments, some longtime opponents of gay marriage now say that its nationwide legalization via a Supreme Court ruling is inevitable. Others refuse to concede, and some leaders of that cohort will be rallying Thursday at a March for Marriage in Washington that they hope will draw many thousands.

The event's main sponsor is the National Organization for Marriage, which engaged in several successful state campaigns against gay marriage prior to the 2012 votes in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington state that reversed the tide.

NOM is promoting the march with a website that evokes a "road to victory" and a video featuring dramatic background music.

"A competition is won by those who take the field, not by those who sit on the sidelines," NOM's president, Brian Brown, exhorts his supporters. "Friends, we need to take the field for marriage — and fight to win."

Brown, in a telephone interview, said his best-case scenario hinged on a future ruling by the Supreme Court upholding the right of states to set their own marriage laws, rather than imposing same-sex marriage nationwide. Such a ruling would strengthen the position of the 31 states that currently ban gay marriage and might encourage grass-roots efforts in some of the other states to reimpose bans, Brown said.

"We'd put this back in the hands of the democratic process," Brown said. "We would have the people deciding for themselves."

If the Supreme Court ruled the other way, legalizing gay marriage nationwide, "We won't go away," Brown said.

He envisioned a resistance campaign comparable to that waged by the anti-abortion movement since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a nationwide right to abortion.

"In the next year or so, we'll either have a massive victory at the Supreme Court, or we'll need to fight for 10, 20 years to undo the damage that the court has done," Brown said.

Among the scheduled speakers at the march is Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that has fought in court on behalf of laws banning gay marriage.

Nimocks argues that America would be better off if the Supreme Court allowed the current split among the states to continue, along with the public debate over the repercussions of gay marriage.

"America has not fallen apart because some states have same-sex marriage and others do not," he said. "We've been managing that for 10 years."

While Nimocks and Brown are optimistic that the Supreme Court won't impose same-sex marriage, other veterans of the fight against it think differently.

"Let's face it: Anybody who does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn't been observing what's going on," Sen. Orrin Hatch, a seven-term conservative Republican from Utah, told a radio interviewer last month.

Maggie Gallagher, a former president of the National Organization for Marriage, also expects that outcome. In a recent blog post, she said gay-marriage opponents needed to regroup and recognize that they have become "a subculture facing a dominant culture."

"The way you keep a movement going is to define achievable victories," she said in an interview. "The marriage movement is in the process of trying to figure out what that is."

A leading advocate of same-sex marriage, Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, said his adversaries have been placed in an ever-weakening position by trends in public opinion polls and by the recent court rulings. One after another, the judges have said they heard no convincing argument why gay couples should be denied the marriage rights afforded to opposite-sex couples.

"All the defenses of discrimination conjured up by the dwindling hard-core of opponents have been exposed as indefensible, insufficient, or untrue," said Wolfson.

In the political realm, Democrats increasingly see advocacy of gay marriage as a winning position, while the Republican Party — whose 2012 national platform opposes gay marriage — is now experiencing some divisions.

In several states, some GOP leaders have objected to planks in the state party platform that oppose same-sex marriage. Also, several of the GOP governors whose states are among those allowing gay marriage have accepted the new reality rather than continue railing against it.

In Congress, conservative Republicans have introduced two bills opposing same-sex marriage, but neither has drawn strong support even within GOP ranks. One would require the federal government to defer to state marriage laws, including those banning gay marriage; the other would amend the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

Amid the string of defeats in court, many opponents of gay marriage have focused their wrath on the judges making those decisions.

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, depicted the rulings as "judicial tyranny." Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — who'll be a featured speaker at Thursday's march — called for the impeachment of the judge who struck down his state's gay-marriage ban.

"When members of the judiciary act as if they were entitled to the power of all three branches of government, it creates a disturbing abuse of power," Huckabee said in an email to The Associated Press.

Some conservative groups have launched fundraising appeals decrying recent cases where prominent people lost jobs or business opportunities because of their opposition to same-sex marriage. The Family Research Council, for example, depicted as "thuggery" the pressure that led to the resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who had supported a 2008 campaign against gay marriage in California.

"Our ability to express ourselves in the public sphere must never be repressed by the tyranny of political correctness," wrote the council's president, Tony Perkins, in a letter to supporters. "We must never submit to the radical leftist redefinition of human sexuality."

Perkins' group is a co-sponsor of Thursday's march, as is the Coalition of African-American Pastors. The coalition's leader, the Rev. Bill Owens, says he will intensify his advocacy work in black churches, seeking to make the case that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Another co-sponsor is the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which is organizing a bus fleet to carry parishioners to the march.

One of the scheduled speakers is the Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, who chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' subcommittee on the promotion and defense of marriage.

A coalition of liberal politicians and gay-rights leaders in California has issued an open letter to Cordileone, urging him to skip the march. Many of the other scheduled speakers "have repeatedly denigrated lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said the letter, suggesting the archbishop shouldn't align with such viewpoints.

Along with the Catholic Church, several other major denominations remain adamant in opposing same-sex marriage.

"We stand strong on what the Scripture says about marriage between a man and a woman," said the Rev. Ronnie Floyd after his recent election as new president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

A top Mormon leader reiterated opposition to gay marriage during the biannual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April.

"While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not," said Neil Andersen.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 16, 2014, 06:25:34 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-court-overturns-gay-sex-ban-202738354.html;_ylt=AwrSbm67eZ9TSlsA8BFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0bW82YXVyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQzM18x
6/16/14
Alabama court overturns gay-sex ban

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — An appeals court has ruled that an Alabama law criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct is unconstitutional.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously overturned the state's anti-sodomy law. The judges said it was the first time the law's constitutionality had been addressed since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a similar Texas law in 2003.

Civil and gay-rights advocates say the ruling is a step in the right direction.

The state attorney general's office brought the case to the appeals court after a prosecutor failed to get a jury to convict a defendant on the felony charge of first-degree sodomy. The jury had convicted the defendant of the lesser, non-felony charge of sexual misconduct.

The Human Rights Campaign says Alabama is one of a dozen states with anti-sodomy laws on the books.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 17, 2014, 11:27:51 am
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Hearing-in-key-Colorado-gay-marriage-lawsuits-5555751.php
Colorado judge skeptical of gay marriage ban
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI, Associated Press
Updated 7:08 pm, Monday, June 16, 2014

BRIGHTON, Colo. (AP) — Colorado's gay marriage ban appeared to be on thin ice Monday after a judge considering two lawsuits against the law pointed out that 15 other judges have recently struck down similar bans in other states.

Those rulings followed the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year ordering the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages approved by states, District Court Judge C. Scott Crabtree said at a hearing.

A lawyer from the Colorado attorney general's office, which is defending the ban, argued that the justices' ruling has been misread, to which Crabtree replied, "They got it all wrong?"

Crabtree was openly skeptical of the state's arguments that the 2006 voter-approved ban protects the procreative nature of marriage. He mentioned two of his friends who are marrying this summer at age 65.

"Their marriage is not about having any more kids," he quipped.

Crabtree heard arguments in lawsuits filed by one couple in Adams County and eight in Denver who are seeking to be recognized as married couples in Colorado. He said he would issue a written decision rather than rule from the bench and noted that his decision will likely be appealed all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Several of the rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans in other states have been put on hold, Crabtree said, suggesting the judge might prevent any ruling from going into effect until appeals are exhausted.

Attorney General John Suthers' office defied calls by some activists to follow the examples of attorneys general in seven other states who have declined to defend their state prohibitions.

Assistant Solicitor General Michael Francisco warned the judge that no one knows what the true impact could be of overturning the Colorado's ban.

"It will have real-world consequences," Francisco said, comparing it to state laws passed 40 years ago making divorce easier.

Gov. John Hickenlooper's office did not take a side in the case. The governor's chief lawyer, Jack Finlaw, said in court that the governor upholds the law but opposed the ban when it was on the ballot in 2006. He urged a ruling "respectful of the rights of all Coloradans."

Ralph Ogden, an attorney representing one of the couples, said the ban "has created two classes of citizens: One can be married, the other cannot."

But Francisco said Colorado voters have the ability to make that distinction. He told Crabtree that the judges who have struck down gay marriage bans elsewhere are guessing that the U.S. Supreme Court will declare gay marriage a constitutional right, but it is not the job of lower court judges to predict such a ruling.

"This court must draw its own conclusion," he said.

Crabtree was incredulous. "What am I supposed to do?" he asked. "Just punt?"


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 17, 2014, 10:20:25 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/court-consider-5-gay-marriage-cases-once-193154579.html
6/17/14
Court to consider 5 gay marriage cases at once

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal appeals court will hear arguments in gay marriage fights in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee in a single session, setting the stage for historic rulings in each state.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, scheduled arguments in five cases from the four states for Aug. 6. Though the cases are unique, each deals with whether statewide gay marriage bans violate the Constitution.

"I think the way the court's approaching it is significant," said Al Gerhardstein, a Cincinnati civil rights attorney who represents plaintiffs in two Ohio cases that will go before the appeals court. "They see the need to do some basic rulings on core principles cutting across all these state lines. It's very exciting."

Louisville attorney Dawn Elliott, who represents eight plaintiffs in the Kentucky case, said she and her co-counsel plan to make their arguments personal, focusing on the people affected by the ruling.

"Our plaintiffs are all planning on being there, because it's harder to say no to somebody when you're looking at them, to say, 'No your marriage is not valid because you're gay,'" said Elliott's co-counsel, Shannon Fauver.

The 6th Circuit is the third federal appeals court to weigh recent challenges to state gay marriage bans, though the first to consider cases in so many states at the same time. Arguments were held in the 4th Circuit in Virginia concerning one case in May and the 10th Circuit in Denver concerning two cases in April. Rulings are expected soon.

In Cincinnati, a three-judge panel will hear arguments in each case one at a time. It's unclear whether it will issue a large ruling encompassing all the cases or separate ones. Any losing side could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More than a dozen federal and state judges have struck down part or all of state-level bans in recent months. No rulings have gone the other way.

The 6th Circuit's decision to consolidate the cases is unusual but not unprecedented, said Carl Tobias, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Richmond.


He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which consolidated five segregation cases, and rulings on other issues including abortion.

Although there has been a wave of rulings in favor of gay marriage across the country, Tobias said that doesn't mean the circuit courts will uphold them.

"Appellate judges are a little more distant and different than individual district judges and they're more willing to go against the tide," he said.

The five cases being considered by the Cincinnati appeals court are:

— An order for Ohio to recognize all out-of-state gay marriages, currently on hold, and a narrower case that forced Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates.

— A ruling that Kentucky recognize out-of-state gay marriages, saying a statewide ban violated the Constitution's equal-protection clause by treating "gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them."

— An order overturning Michigan's statewide gay marriage ban, which followed a rare trial that focused mostly on the impact of same-sex parenting on children. More than 300 couples were married on a Saturday in March before the ruling was suspended pending appeal.

— An order for Tennessee to recognize three same-sex marriages while a lawsuit against the state works through the courts. Tennessee officials are appealing the preliminary injunction to the 6th Circuit.

Ohio's attorney general has said the state's voters have decided in 2004 that marriage is between a man and a woman and that he'll continue to defend the ban.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has said his state won't recognize the 300 marriages performed in March because the ban is still the law.

A spokesman for Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam has said the governor was disappointed in the ruling, saying the state's voters passed a statewide ban in 2006.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear hired private attorneys to appeal his state's decision after the Attorney General Jack Conway called a tearful news conference to announce he would not appeal the ruling, saying that doing so would be "defending discrimination."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 18, 2014, 10:33:34 am
http://www.freep.com/article/20140617/NEWS06/306170104
6/17/14
Some prominent Republicans support eliminating Michigan's gay marriage ban

LANSING — Some 25 prominent Republicans have signed on to an amicus brief supporting same-sex marriage in Michigan’s case before the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

They are jumping into the fray at the same time the state party is walking a fine line, trying to balance traditional views on marriage with evolving attitudes on LGBT issues.

It’s a difficult path for a political party that on the one hand is trying to expand its membership to a more diverse population, and on the other hand is trying not to alienate its base and abide by the platform that recognizes marriage as strictly between one man and one woman.

“For Republicans, there is always pressure from the right to take the hard-line stance. But if you’re a statewide official, you have to balance it off with an awful lot of people in the middle,” said Tom Shields, president of the Lansing political consulting firm Marketing Resource Group.

The two-dozen Republicans who signed the brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals Monday said it’s time to provide equality for all citizens.

“As various states have legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples, undersigned Amici, like many Americans, have examined the emerging evidence and have concluded that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples,” they said in the brief.

The brief was signed by 15 former members of either the state or U.S. House of Representatives, including former Speaker of the House Rick Johnson of LeRoy, U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz of Battle Creek, and state Rep. Chris Ward of Howell.

It was also signed by well-known constitutional attorney Richard McLellan, who has advised many Republican politicians; Jennifer Gratz, who led the fight against affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan; and Greg McNeilly, a prominent Republican staffer who was one of about 300 same-sex couples who were married in the hours after U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down Michigan’s ban as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Former state Rep. Leon Drolet, a Macomb County Republican who also signed the brief, said it serves two purposes: showing federal judges how prominent Republicans feel about the issue and providing an example for fellow Republicans.

“Republicans in general who support equality for gay citizens can feel that they’re not alone out there, and they can come out of the closet, so to speak, in support of equality,” said Drolet, one of three Republicans who voted against the same-sex marriage amendment when it came before the Legislature in 2004.

Former Speaker Johnson said if he had to do it over again, he would not have voted for the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

“You make decisions, especially when you’re the leader, based on what’s going on at the time, and that was the movement at the time,” he said. “But now, if you’re going to be Republican and make the comments that we want a broad tent, then you should include everyone. A lot of people are tired of government in their house, in the backyard or in their bedroom.”

Some Republicans are holding true to the party’s platform and speaking out in support of traditional marriage. State Rep. Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, says on his campaign website that, “We tamper with this bedrock of society at our society’s detriment.”

And state House candidate Gary Glenn, R-Midland, a coauthor of the 2004 marriage protection amendment, includes the brief he filed in support of Attorney General Bill Schuette’s appeal of Friedman’s ruling on his campaign website, including, “there can be no question that the memorialization of marriage as the union of one man and one woman fortifies the foundation of Michigan law and the health, safety and well-being of its citizens.”

Schuette and Gov. Rick Snyder have softened their messages on the issue without offering firm support for same-sex unions.

Schuette has been adamant in his defense of Michigan’s ban, passed by voters in 2004 by a wide 59%-41% margin, in legal filings before the court. But, shortly after Friedman’s ruling, he also said: “Families come in all sorts of colors, shapes and sizes. I want to have loving parents.

“I know that single parents and gay parents love their kids. I’m cool with having parents who love their kids. Whether it’s gay or straight, kids today need loving attentive parents.”

Snyder said even though he thought the 299 same-sex marriages performed in the hours before the Court of Appeals put a halt to them until they could hear the appeal of Friedman’s ruling, the state couldn’t recognize those marriages until the issue is decided by the courts.

When asked how he feels personally on the issue, he sidestepped the question, saying, “I don’t believe that’s a relevant consideration.”

For Schuette, Shields said, the issue is also a legal one: “He (Schuette) has to be in a position to uphold the law down the road if the Supreme Court rules against him. He has a larger responsibility beyond his personal political beliefs.”

The 31 briefs filed Monday in support of throwing out the ban included labor and religious organizations, law professors and a group of 53 large and small businesses, including Starbucks, Google, Marriott International, Oracle, Pfizer and Intel.

They came the same day the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals scheduled Aug. 6 oral arguments in Cincinnati in the case April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse filed so they could adopt each other’s special needs children. The case turned into a trial over Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban.

Friedman struck down the ban on March 21, and for a day in Michigan, same-sex marriage was legal, allowing 299 couples to marry. State Attorney General Bill Schuette appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals and asked them to halt the marriages until they could hear the case — which the appeals court did.

Drolet said either way the court rules, Republicans run the risk of pushback if they openly dismiss same-sex marriage.

“Some Republican benefactors are all of a sudden starting to withhold support, and it’s going to be harder to round up a bunch of college students to go door-to-door for you if you’re a gay basher,” he said. “Hopefully we’re moving to a place where treating people differently based on gender or sexual orientation will be an embarrassing part of our past.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 25, 2014, 12:03:25 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/federal-appeals-court-utah-cant-ban-gay-marriage-162359016.html
Federal appeals court: Utah can't ban gay marriage
6/25/14

DENVER (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled for the first time that states must allow gay couples to marry, finding the Constitution protects same-sex relationships and putting a remarkable legal winning streak across the country one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision from a three-judge panel in Denver upheld a lower court ruling that struck down Utah's gay marriage ban. The panel immediately put on the ruling on hold so it could be appealed, either to the entire 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or directly to the nation's highest court.

"A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union," the panel wrote. Gay marriage in Utah likely will remain on hold pending the appeal.

The decision gives increased momentum to a legal cause that already compiled an impressive winning streak in the lower courts after the Supreme Court last year struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Since then, 14 federal judges have issued rulings siding with gay marriage advocates.

Two of the most striking of those decisions were in the conservative states of Utah and Oklahoma, which saw their voter-approved gay marriage bans overturned in December and January, respectively. In Utah, more than 1,000 same-sex couples wed before the Supreme Court issued a stay.

The 10th Circuit panel considered both cases. It did not rule on the Oklahoma ban.

Though the Utah and Oklahoma cases were closely watched, it is unclear whether they will be the first to reach the Supreme Court. The high court could choose from cases moving through five other federal appellate courts, and wouldn't consider a case until next year at the earliest.

Attorneys representing Utah and Oklahoma argued voters have the right to define marriage in their states. Gay rights lawyers countered that they cannot do so in a way that deprives gay people of their fundamental rights.

The appellate ruling comes 42 years after the Supreme Court refused to hear a case of two men who were refused a marriage license in Minnesota, finding there was no legal issue for the justices to consider, and just 10 years after 11 states voted to outlaw gay marriage.

Now same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Recent polls show a majority of Americans support it.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 25, 2014, 12:19:30 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-indiana-ban-gay-marriage-24298066
Judge Strikes Down Indiana Ban on Gay Marriage
INDIANAPOLIS — Jun 25, 2014, 11:53 AM ET

A federal judge struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday in a ruling that immediately allows gay couples to wed.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young ruled that the state's ban violates the U.S. Constitution's equal-protection clause because it treats couples differently based on their sexual orientation.

"Same-sex couples, who would otherwise qualify to marry in Indiana, have the right to marry in Indiana," he wrote. "These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such."

The clerk in Marion County, home to Indianapolis, says the office will start issuing marriage licenses immediately.

The Indiana attorney general's office said it would appeal the ruling but declined further comment.

The ruling involves lawsuits filed by several gay couples, who along with the state had asked for a summary judgment in the case. Young's ruling was mixed but was generally in favor of the gay couples and prevents the state from enforcing the ban.

Federal courts across the country have recently struck down gay marriage bans, but many of those rulings are on hold pending appeal. Attorneys on both sides of the issue expect the matter to eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Indiana now joins the momentum for nationwide marriage equality and Hoosiers can now proclaim they are on the right side of history," Lambda Legal, the national gay rights group that represented five of the couples, said in a statement Wednesday.

A movement to add a gay marriage ban to the Indiana constitution faltered during this legislative session when lawmakers removed language about civil unions from the amendment. That means the soonest the issue could appear on a ballot is 2016, unless federal court rulings scuttle the proposed amendment.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 25, 2014, 03:11:53 pm
Not sure what the context this guy talking about, but nonetheless it sounds like the federal appeals court Utah ruling may have been a more sweeping one(likely in principle thought), compared to the USSC's ruling last year being more limited.

Video: http://news.yahoo.com/video/appeals-court-states-cant-ban-194908168.html

Appeals Court: States Can't Ban Gay Marriage
Associated Press Videos 1:18 mins

A federal appeals court ruled that states must allow gay couples to marry, finding the Constitution protects same-sex relationships and putting a remarkable legal winning streak across the country one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court. (June 25)



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 27, 2014, 03:45:02 pm
http://www.newsweek.com/colorado-clerk-issues-gay-marriage-licenses-without-law-change-256389

Colorado Clerk Issues Gay Marriage Licenses Without Law Change
By Reuters
Filed: 6/26/14 at 2:02 PM

DENVER (Reuters) - A left-leaning Colorado county defiantly issued marriage licenses to gay couples on Thursday, emboldened by a landmark same-sex marriage ruling by a regional appeals court, even as the state attorney general warned such nuptials would not be valid.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver ruled on Wednesday that conservative Utah cannot ban same-sex couples from marrying, pushing the issue of gay marriage a step nearer the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
 The appeals court, whose decisions apply to six states including Colorado, stayed its ruling in anticipation of a legal challenge by Utah. Within hours of the verdict, the clerk's office in Boulder County, Colorado, began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

"Couples across Colorado have been waiting a long time to have their right to marry the person they love recognized," County Clerk Hillary Hall said in a statement. "I want to act immediately to let them carry out that wish."

An office spokeswoman, Jane Culkin, said two licenses were issued Wednesday, a further 11 by mid-morning on Thursday, and that more likely would be given out during the day.

The 2-1 verdict by the 10th Circuit marked the first time a regional appeals court has ruled on gay marriage since the Supreme Court forced the federal government to extend benefits to legally married same-sex couples a year ago.

It followed a series of decisions by federal district judges who have struck down state gay marriage bans as unconstitutional in rulings that could substantially expand U.S. gay marriage rights if upheld.

At issue for gay couples who received licenses to wed in Boulder is whether the stay placed on the 10th Circuit's ruling is interpreted as applying to all the court's states, or only to Utah. No other county clerk's office in Colorado immediately said they would issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said in a statement late on Wednesday that a state constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriages remained in effect.

"(The) decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was stayed by the Court and has not gone into effect even in Utah, let alone in Colorado," Suthers said.

"Any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples in Colorado before a final court resolution of the issue are invalid."



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 01, 2014, 04:38:27 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-kentuckys-gay-marriage-ban-163516500.html
Judge strikes down Kentucky's gay marriage ban
7/1/14

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A federal judge in Kentucky struck down the state's ban on gay marriage on Tuesday, though the ruling was temporarily put on hold and it was not immediately clear when same-sex couples could be issued marriage licenses.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn in Louisville concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex couples being wed violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by treating gay couples differently than straight couples. The ruling was the latest in a string of victories for gay marriage advocates across the nation, and marked the most recent conservative state to have its ban overturned.

Heyburn previously struck down Kentucky's ban on recognizing same-sex marriages from other states and countries, but he put the implementation of that ruling on hold. That decision did not deal with whether Kentucky would have to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Instead, Tuesday's ruling dealt directly with that question.

"Sometimes, by upholding equal rights for a few, courts necessarily must require others to forebear some prior conduct or restrain some personal instinct," Heyburn wrote. "Here, that would not seem to be the case. Assuring equal protection for same-sex couples does not diminish the freedom of others to any degree."

Heyburn noted that every federal court to consider a same-sex marriage ban has found it unconstitutional. Gay rights activists have won 18 cases in federal and state courts since the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013 struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. During that time, only Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver has argued for keeping a state ban on same-sex marriages.

A total of 13 gay marriage cases are pending in state and federal appeals courts. Those rulings all are on hold pending appellate court decisions. Also on Tuesday, six couples sued to overturn Colorado's gay marriage ban, a move that comes as the Republican attorney general urged Boulder officials to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled arguments on rulings from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee in a single session, on Aug. 6. Although the cases are unique, each deals with whether statewide gay marriage bans violate the Constitution. The Michigan case also dealt with a ban on state-issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear said the state will appeal Heyburn's decision, though it's not clear if the appeal will be heard alongside the others before the 6th Circuit.

The lead plaintiff, Timothy Love, 55, of Louisville, Kentucky, said he was "ecstatic" about the decision and hopes to be able to marry his partner of 34 years, Larry Ysunza, once all the appeals are complete.

"We wanted to see the entire ban struck down," Love said. "Now, the headline is 'Love Wins.'"

Dan Canon, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said he was excited about the ruling because the day will arrive soon when same-sex couples can get a marriage license in Kentucky.

"We believe the opinion forcefully lays to rest any notion that Kentucky's anti-marriage laws are based on anything other than discrimination against homosexuals," Canon said.

In support of the ban, Beshear argued in part that Kentucky's prohibition encouraged, promoted and supported relationships among people who have the "natural ability to procreate." A stable birth rate ensures the state's long-term economic stability, Beshear argued in court records.

Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, dismissed the governor's argument because excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to marry and have children.

"These arguments are not those of serious people," Heyburn wrote.

Martin Cothran, a senior policy analyst with the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said Heyburn "has declared martial law on marriage policy" in Kentucky.

"By taking another important area of policy out of the hands of voters, liberal judges have struck another blow against the separation of powers that is an underlying principle of our form of government," Cothran said.

Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, a group backing same-sex marriage, said the ruling shows the public is ready to remove the legal bans put in place in many states.

"It is wrong for the government to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry the person they love; a freedom that is part of every American's liberty and pursuit of happiness," Wolfson said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 01, 2014, 05:37:40 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/court-orders-indiana-recognize-1-gay-marriage-202300715.html
Court orders Indiana to recognize 1 gay marriage
7/1/14

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — At least one same-sex couple in Indiana will have their marriage recognized by the state following a federal court decision Tuesday.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ordered Indiana to acknowledge the marriage of a lesbian couple, one of whom is terminally ill, on an emergency basis.

The emergency ruling came just days after the court stayed a federal judge's order setting aside Indiana's prohibition of gay marriage as unconstitutional.

Lawyers from Lambda Legal had asked the appeals court for the continued recognition of the marriage of Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, who is fighting advanced ovarian cancer.

"It is time for the State of Indiana to leave Niki and Amy in peace and not subject them and their marriage to any more stress and uncertainty as this case proceeds. We're thrilled that the court ruled in favor of this family as Niki battles stage 4 ovarian cancer," said Paul D. Castillo, attorney for the national gay rights group Lambda Legal, who represented the couple.

The three-line order contained no legal arguments or reasoning, but simply ordered Indiana to recognize the validity of couple's marriage "on an emergency basis."

The women, who were legally married in Massachusetts last year, filed a lawsuit seeking to force Indiana to recognize their marriage. They were granted emergency recognition in May while their case proceeded, in part so Sandler's name could appear on Quasney's death certificate as her spouse. The couple fears Sandler's ability to collect Social Security and other death benefits would be harmed if their marriage isn't recognized.

The appeals court did not rule on the overall issue of the constitutionality of Indiana's gay marriage ban, which went back into effect Friday when the 7th Circuit stayed Judge Richard Young's ruling that struck down the Indiana prohibition. Young's ruling Wednesday sent hundreds of same-sex couples to clerks' offices across the state to get marriage licenses and be wed, but the status of those unions isn't clear.

The Indiana attorney general's office had invited the court to grant a hardship exception for Quasney and Sandler if it could find a legal way to do so. State attorneys said they had been unable to find one.

Staci Schneider, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said Tuesday that the office respects the court's ruling but declined further comment.

"We hope the court will look at this marriage, as well as the hundreds of couples legally married last week across the state, and understand that to deny the freedom to marry is to inhibit equal protection of loving Hoosier families under Indiana law," Hoosiers Unite for Marriage said in a statement. "It cannot stand, and we will fight both the legal battle and to make sure Hoosiers understand why marriage matters and why these couples deserve protection."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 01, 2014, 10:56:42 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-clerk-again-refuses-halt-issuing-same-sex-211815941.html
Colorado clerk again refuses to halt issuing same-sex marriage licenses
7/1/14

 BOULDER Colo. (Reuters) - A county clerk in Colorado refused on Tuesday an ultimatum by the state attorney general to stop unilaterally issuing same-sex marriage licenses until the U.S. Supreme Court settles the issue, or face legal action.

The conflict in Colorado erupted after the elected clerk of left-leaning Boulder County began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples last week despite warnings from the Republican attorney general that such licenses would be invalid.

The clerk was emboldened by a landmark decision by a Denver-based regional appeals court that found in favor of same-sex marriage in neighboring Utah. That ruling, however, has been put on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court definitively rules on the matter.

“Same-sex licenses are legal and just and we will continue to issue them,” Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall said in a statement rejecting the latest demand of the state attorney general.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers says the nuptials are invalid because of the hold put on the Utah case by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose rulings apply to six states including Colorado.

But he offered to Hall that the two sides could jointly petition the state Supreme Court seeking a quick ruling on whether the clerk could legally issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and whether they would be valid.

Hall responded by asking for more time to mull over the offer. The attorney general’s office agreed to the extension, but only if Hall stopped issuing the licenses in the interim, Solicitor General Dan Domenico said in a letter to the county’s attorney.

“If she elects to continue after today, I’m afraid we will be forced to take legal action,” Domenico said on Tuesday.

Hall responded that the extension had been “essentially denied” by the attorney general, and said she would continue issuing the licenses. There was no immediate reaction by the attorney general's office.

Outside the Boulder clerk’s office on Tuesday, Julie Hoehing and Nancy Cooley proudly showed the license that they secured before a noon deadline set by the attorney general. The lesbian couple said they wanted to get their license quickly because of the legal uncertainty.

Separately, six same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in Denver federal court on Tuesday, challenging the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage. In February, nine couples filed a similar suit in state court.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 09, 2014, 05:43:00 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-colorado-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-215803060.html
Judge: Colorado gay marriage ban unconstitutional
7/9/14

A judge in Colorado has struck down the state's gay marriage ban.

District Court Judge C. Scott Crabtree on Wednesday ruled the 2006 voter-approved ban violates the state and federal constitutions. He immediately put his ruling on hold pending an appeal.

Crabtree is the 16th judge to void a state's gay marriage ban since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that the federal government has to recognize gay marriages in the states.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 10, 2014, 04:39:57 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-gay-couples-keep-marrying-colorado-193042570.html
Judge: Gay couples can keep marrying in Colorado
7/10/14

DENVER (AP) — Gay couples can keep getting married in Colorado, even though the state's gay marriage ban is still in effect, a judge ruled Thursday.

The decision by District Court Judge Andrew Hartman added to the national confusion over same-sex marriage, as he found a county clerk can continue giving marriage licenses to gay couples despite what the state's attorney general calls "legal chaos" as the issue makes its way to the Colorado and U.S. Supreme Courts.

An hour after Hartman issued his ruling, Denver's clerk said she would join her counterpart in the liberal college town of Boulder in providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Couples began trickling into Denver City Hall to tie the knot Thursday afternoon.

Hartman's decision said Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall can ignore a federal stay on a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which found states cannot set gender requirements for marriage.

The judge said gay marriage is still technically illegal in Colorado but that Hall's behavior was not harming anyone. However, he warned that the licenses could still be invalid if a court later finds that Hall lacked the authority to issue them.

Hartman also noted that every judge who has considered a gay marriage ban in the past year — including one in Colorado the previous afternoon — has found it unconstitutional. He said Colorado's prohibition is "hanging on by a thread."

Denver Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson described the news as "awesome."

"Finally, we can give out marriage licenses to all loving couples," she said.

Gay couples began arriving at her office later in the day. Samantha Getman, 33, and Victoria Quintana, 23, were first, getting their license shortly after 2 p.m.

"We wanted to come down and get it before someone started taking it away from us again," Getman said as she held up her paperwork in front of a bank of television cameras.

In Boulder County, Hall has issued more than 100 same-sex marriage licenses since the 10th Circuit's June 25 ruling. Republican state Attorney General John Suthers sued Hall, the only Colorado clerk who defied the federal stay.

Hall argued that despite the stay, Colorado's gay-marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution.

Suthers said Hall's behavior was causing "legal chaos" while the issue works its way through the courts. In a statement Thursday afternoon, Suthers said the issue "cries out for resolution by the state's highest court."

Nancy Leong, a University of Denver law professor, said Hartman's ruling effectively allows government officials to sometimes disobey state law if they believe it violates the nation's founding principles.

"I read his opinion to say a certain level of what we may call civil disobedience is permissible under the U.S. Constitution," Leong said.

She said that, in the abstract, it seemed unlikely a judge would permit a government official to do something contrary to state law. But things play out differently in the notoriously liberal Colorado city known as "The Berkeley of the Rockies."

"It's Boulder," Leong said.

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper appointed Hartman to the bench last year. A spokesman for the governor did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

The decision from a three-judge 10th Circuit panel found states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose partners of the same sex.

The ruling became law in the six states covered by the court: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. However, the panel immediately put the decision on hold pending an appeal.


On Wednesday, the office of the Utah attorney general announced it will challenge the panel's ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning the nation's highest court will have at least one same-sex marriage case on its plate when it returns in October.

There is no guarantee the high court will take the case, but situations like the one in Colorado add to the pressure for a final, definitive national ruling on the state of gay marriage in the U.S.

Gay marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, but it's in legal limbo in much of the rest of the nation. Seemingly every week, a new gay marriage ban gets struck down. Sometimes marriages start immediately; other times the rulings are put on hold and nothing happens.

In Colorado, District Judge C. Scott Crabtree on Wednesday became the 16th judge to strike down a state's gay marriage ban in the past year, but he also put his ruling on hold pending an appeal.

Crabtree wrote that the provisions in Colorado law clearly violate the state and U.S. constitutions. "There is no rational relationship between any legitimate governmental purpose and the marriage bans," he wrote.

The ruling will be appealed by Suthers' office, which defended the ban.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 11, 2014, 06:39:27 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/third-colorado-county-licenses-gay-couples-wed-204747483.html
Third Colorado county licenses gay couples to wed
7/11/14

DENVER (AP) — A third Colorado county began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples Friday even though the legal fight is far from resolved in the state.

Pueblo County joined Denver and Boulder County in allowing gay couples to marry a day after a state judge ruled the Boulder clerk can continue issuing the licenses.

Twelve couples were issued licenses in Pueblo County by midday, including two people from Mississippi who heard the news while traveling through the state and decided to get a license, Clerk Gilbert Ortiz said.

Some couples exchanged vows outside the clerk's office, while others took them home to hold a ceremony later.

Colorado's 2006 voter-approved gay marriage ban remains on the books. But District Court Judge Andrew Hartman said it is "hanging on by a thread" following rulings by another state court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Denver, Clerk Debra Johnson began granting gay-marriage licenses Thursday afternoon, shortly after Hartman issued his ruling. The county has granted about 40 licenses to gay couples.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers had sought to block the issuing of licenses, warning of "legal chaos." In a statement Thursday, he pledged to go to the state Supreme Court as soon as possible "to prevent a legal patchwork quilt from forming."

In Boulder County, more than 120 couples have married since the county clerk started issuing licenses two weeks ago, when the appeals court panel found Utah's gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

The ruling became law in all six 10th Circuit states — including Colorado — but the panel immediately put it on hold while Utah appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court
.


On Wednesday, District Judge C. Scott Crabtree struck down Colorado's ban, joining multiple other judges who have done the same in other states. Crabtree also placed his ruling on hold while the legal battle plays out.

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper has asked Suthers, a Republican, not to appeal.

"The decision on marriage by Judge Crabtree puts Colorado on the right side of history," Hickenlooper said.

In the Boulder case, Hartman found the licenses were harmless and an acceptable form of civil disobedience. But he required that all couples be warned their marriage could lack legal value if a court later upholds Colorado's ban.

His decision left clerks around the state trying to figure out what to do.

Mesa County Clerk Sheila Reiner noted clerks must weigh the risk of issuing licenses that might become invalid with violating people's rights by declining to do so. "It's sort of a rock and a hard place," she said.

Ortiz said he read all three of the rulings affecting Colorado, but the Boulder ruling persuaded him to issue the licenses, especially its reference to St. Augustine's belief that an unjust law is no law at all.

"The scale of justice started leaning toward individual rights for me," said Ortiz, who married his friends Bob Hudson and Mike Lawson.

Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, but it's in limbo in much of the rest of the nation

There is no guarantee the nation's highest court will take the case when it returns in October. But situations like the one in Colorado add to the pressure for a final, definitive ruling on gay marriage in the U.S.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 12, 2014, 10:06:17 am
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58175212-78/utah-state-court-sex.html.csp
Same-sex couples married in Utah may have rights in 10 days

If the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t intervene, married couples may apply for benefits in 10 days.

By Marissa Lang

| The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Jul 11 2014 05:32 pm • Last Updated Jul 11 2014 10:30 pm

In 10 days, same-sex couples married in Utah may be able to apply for spousal benefits.

A federal appeals court Friday denied Utah’s request for a stay that would have indefinitely halted all movement toward providing gay and lesbian spouses benefits, pending the state’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that ordered Utah to honor those unions.

A three-judge panel at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the state’s request late Friday, but also extended a temporary stay through July 21, giving the state time to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

That gives Utah 10 days to appeal to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees the circuit, and reiterate its argument that allowing same-sex couples to receive spousal benefits before a federal appeals court has ruled on whether the state is legally obligated to do so would undermine the legal system and the state’s right to an appeal.

And that’s exactly what the state is going to do.

In a statement released by the attorney general’s office, Utah announced its intention to promptly file an application for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court "to avoid uncertainty."

"The State recognizes that pending cases regarding same-sex marriage in Utah impact the lives of many individuals and families and is diligently seeking uniform certainty through proper and orderly legal processes until Kitchen v. Herbert is resolved," the statement said, referencing Utah’s other pending same-sex marriage appeal aimed at reviving a voter-approved ban on gay and lesbian unions.

While the state’s intentions were not surprising to Jonell Evans, for whom the marriage recognition suit is named, or her wife Stacia Ireland, the women said, it doesn’t make it easier to accept.

"We’ve all waited our whole life for these rights," Evans told The Tribune. "We’d like not to, but we’ll continue to wait if we must."

Evans and Ireland, who hadn’t heard about the 10th Circuit’s decision until contacted by a reporter, said they were filled with hope.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on July 12, 2014, 11:17:30 am
California Governor Signs Homosexual Bill Eliminating Terms ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’

 The governor of California has signed a bill into law that redefines marriage and replaces the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ with the generic term ‘spouse.’ The law will take effect on January 1, 2015.

http://christiannews.net/2014/07/10/california-governor-signs-homosexual-bill-eliminating-terms-husband-and-wife/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 12, 2014, 02:55:38 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-governors-words-shift-gay-marriage-161801223--politics.html
Republican governors' words shift on gay marriage
7/12/14

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Deep in the nation's Bible Belt, new signs emerged this weekend of an evolution among Republican governors on gay marriage, an explosive social issue that has divided America's families and politics for years.

While the Republican Party's religious conservatives continue to fight against same-sex marriage, its governors appear to be backing off their opposition— in their rhetoric, at least. For some, the shift may be more a matter of tone than substance as the GOP tries to attract new voters ahead of the midterm elections. Nonetheless, it is dramatic turn for a party that has long been defined by social conservative values.

"I don't think the Republican Party is fighting it," Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker said of gay marriage. He spoke with The Associated Press during an interview this weekend at the National Governors Association in Nashville.

"I'm not saying it's not important," continued Walker, who is considering a 2016 presidential bid should he survive his reelection test this fall. "But Republicans haven't been talking about this. We've been talking about economic and fiscal issues. It's those on the left that are pushing it."

Walker, like other ambitious Republican governors, is trying to strike a delicate balance.


His comments come just days after he formally appealed a federal judge's ruling striking down Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriages, a ban he supported. But after his party's disastrous 2012 election, the Republican National Committee commissioned a report calling for more "inclusive and welcoming" tones on divisive social issues — particularly those "involving the treatment and the rights of gays."

Walker explained his court appeal as simply as his obligation as governor to defend the state's constitution.

Other Republican governors, however, including New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie, opted against appealing a similar ruling in his state, clearing the way for gay marriage to become legal there.

"That is a very controversial and divisive issue," said Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, suggesting that Republicans are better served by focusing on economic issues. "I'm a religious conservative, I'm a Catholic, I'm pro-life. (But) I think the people of Iowa look to me to provide leadership in bringing good jobs and growing the Iowa economy."

A Gallup poll found in May that national support for same-sex marriage reached an all-time high of 55 percent. That includes 30 percent of Republicans and nearly 8 in 10 young adults from both parties.

Courts across the nation repeatedly have struck down gay marriage bans in recent months. The latest such ruling came Wednesday in Colorado, but it's on hold pending an appeal. At least 20 states now allow gay marriage, although the issue may be headed for the Supreme Court.

The high court's landmark ruling last summer allowed married same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as other married people but did not specifically address whether gay marriage is a constitutional right.

Democratic governors serving in Republican-leaning states that have banned gay marriage also appear to have softened their stands on the issue. Many said they were looking to the Supreme Court to resolve the issue once and for all.

Like Walker, Kentucky's Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear is appealing a recent court ruling that struck down his state's gay marriage ban.

"My goal is to get that issue to the United States Supreme Court and get a final decision that will tell us all what the law is going to be in the future, and then Kentucky will abide by it," Beshear said.

Walker, too, said that Republican governors would be "legally obligated" to support gay marriage should the Supreme Court rule in its favor.

For now, the Republican Party's official platform, as adopted in 2012, calls for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as "the union of one man and one woman," while formally supporting Republican-led campaigns to make the same change in state constitutions.

And despite the softening rhetoric, several states are continuing to fight.

Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky are scheduled to present arguments against recent gay marriage rulings in their states before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Aug. 6.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 15, 2014, 07:37:18 am
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58174793-90/court-supreme-utah-marriage.html.csp
 Experts: Supreme Court may not take Utah’s same-sex marriage appeal
Same-sex marriage » State’s bid for U.S. Supreme Court clarity is no certainty.

By Marissa Lang

| The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Jul 13 2014 01:01 am • Last Updated Jul 14 2014 07:14 am

For Utah, it’s Supreme Court or bust.

After losing its appeal and becoming the first state in which a federal appeals court found marriage to be a fundamental right of all people — gay, straight or otherwise — Utah is done biding its time.

The state wants resolution and finality. And it wants it now.

This week, Utah bypassed another appeal to the full 10th Circuit.

The state will instead appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court "in coming weeks," the attorney general’s office said.

The Kitchen v. Herbert lawsuit, which toppled Utah’s same-sex marriage ban late last year, is the first state same sex marriage lawsuit to go through the appeals processes and is first in line to reach the Supreme Court.

But, experts warn, the path to the highest court in the country is anything but simple.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which is on its summer hiatus until October, has complete discretion over whether it will hear the case.

After Utah files its petition, the Supreme Court has options:

• The nine justices may choose to wait until a majority of the country’s appellate courts have weighed in on the issue.

• They may take the case on its own or combine it with cases from other states and jurisdictions.

• Or they may reject the case — effectively allowing the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling to stand.

University of Utah law professor Cliff Rosky called same sex marriage "an issue of great social importance, of great national importance," and said that might be a reason the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

"So, one might think the court would want to take it on. ... But if you have a Supreme Court ruling where nine justices are dictating the law in all 50 states, that’s not necessarily an ideal outcome," said Rosky, who sits on the board of Equality Utah.

Conflicting rulings among federal appeals courts could prompt the Supreme Court to hear Kitchen v. Herbert.

In 2006 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — overturned a lower court’s ruling and upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

That was seven years before the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and, by virtue of its ruling, extended federal protections to married same-sex couples.

The national and political landscape, experts said, has changed since then.

Although the high court could decide to remain quiet on the issue of state gay marriage bans, experts said, the momentum with which this issue has swept the country and the conflict in the circuits will demand action.

" If you wait for unanimous rulings in all circuits, theoretically, plaintiffs could win this circuit by circuit without the Supreme Court ever getting involved," Rosky said. "It may be the conservatives who don’t want to let the liberals off the hook. All you need is four votes for the case to be heard, and so, you might have conservative judges saying, ‘This is about the legitimacy of the court and the court’s role in that country. We believe the Constitution does not speak to gay and does not speak to marriage, and certainly doesn’t speak to gay marriage. If you want to abuse the constitution in this manner than we absolutely want to know why.’ "


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 15, 2014, 10:06:23 am
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-backs-denver-county-clerk-over-gay-marriage-215139155.html
Judge backs Denver County clerk over gay marriage licenses
7/14/14

 DENVER (Reuters) - A Colorado judge who ruled last week that the state's ban on same-sex nuptials was unconstitutional refused on Monday to stop the Denver County clerk from giving out marriage licenses to gay couples, court records show.

Denver became the second county in the state to issue the permits to same-sex couples, just hours after another judge ruled on Thursday in favor of the county clerk in Boulder, who has issued more than 120 of them since late June.

As in the case of Boulder, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers had sought an injunction to stop Denver County clerk Debra Johnson from handing out the licenses. But on Monday, state court Judge C. Scott Crabtree denied the motion.

The latest twist in the saga for gay marriage supporters in Colorado began on June 25 when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that neighboring Utah could not ban gay marriage, then stayed that decision pending Utah's appeal.

Despite Suthers' insistence that Colorado's ban on same-sex weddings remained in force, Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall began issuing licenses to couples who she said had waited long enough to marry the person they loved.

The attorney general's lawsuit was thrown out, a day after Crabtreee struck down Colorado's gay marriage ban, saying it violated constitutional rights.

It was just the latest of several decisions by state and federal judges who have knocked down state bans on same-sex nuptials, and then staying their rulings pending challenges to higher courts.

Suthers' office says "statewide uniformity" is needed fast, and on Monday it said it would appeal Crabtree's ruling on the state's ban from last Wednesday directly to Colorado's Supreme Court, rather than the state's Court of Appeals.

"We have sought to bring resolution to these issues as quickly as possible, and this is another important step in doing so," Suthers said in a statement.

After Denver followed Boulder last week and said it would begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, Pueblo County in the south of the state also began the practice.

When same-sex couples receive the permit they can choose to get married right away, without anyone else officiating.

Separately, lawyers for same-sex couples suing in federal court filed a motion on Friday which said that in light of the recent decisions, Suthers was fighting a losing a legal battle.

Mari Newman, an attorney for the couples, said the sky had not fallen in Boulder, Denver or Pueblo, despite the county clerks' actions.

"It is time for ... Suthers to quit standing in the way of marriage equality in Colorado," Newman said in a statement.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 17, 2014, 02:06:17 pm
This is ONLY in the FL Keys, NOT the entire state.

http://news.yahoo.com/ruling-allows-same-sex-marriages-florida-keys-172530175.html
Ruling allows same-sex marriages for Florida Keys
7/17/14

MIAMI (AP) — A judge in the Florida Keys overturned the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Thursday after a legal challenge by gay couples said it effectively made them second-class citizens.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Luis M. Garcia applies only to Monroe County, which primarily consists of the Keys, and will certainly be appealed. The lawsuit contended that the same-sex marriage ban approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2008 violated the federal 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The judge, who was appointed by then-Governor Jeb Bush in 2000 and re-elected in 2002 and 2008, said licenses could not be issued until Tuesday at the earliest.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and ban supporters argued that the referendum vote should be respected and that Florida has sole authority to define marriage in the state. The Florida amendment defined marriage solely as a union between one man and one woman. A message left by The Associated Press with Bondi's office was not immediately returned.

"The court is aware that the majority of voters oppose same-sex marriage, but it is our country's proud history to protect the rights of the individual, the rights of the unpopular and the rights of the powerless, even at the cost of offending the majority," Garcia wrote in his decision. "Whether it is ... when Nazi supremacists won the right to march in Skokie, Illinois, a predominantly Jewish neighborhood; or when a black woman wanted to marry a white man in Virginia; or when black children wanted to go to an all-white school, the Constitution guarantees and protects ALL of its citizens from government interference with those rights."

"It hit us a little bit by surprise," said attorney Bernadette Restivo, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of two residents in the county . "But it's very well written ... a thorough analysis of the argument, so we couldn't be happier." She said her clients would celebrate Thursday night on Key West's famous Duval Street.

"This disrespects just under 5 million voters and effectively disenfranchises them. It shows no regard for the rule of law or the constitution," said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, which led the effort to put the gay marriage ban on the 2008 ballot.

He said if opponents of the ban want it repealed, they should put the issue back before Florida voters, who passed the ban with nearly 62 percent support. It would take at least 60 percent support to repeal it.

"They do not have a consensus of Floridians so they're trying to go to the courts for a quick fix. If they're going to do it, that would be the appropriate way to do — take it to the people again with another amendment. They deliberately passed on that strategy because they know that Floridians by and large support marriage between a man and a woman," Stemberger said.

Gay marriage proponents have won more than 20 legal decisions around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year, although those rulings remain in various stages of appeal. Many legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately have to decide the question for all states.

Currently, 19 states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage.

During a recent hearing on a related Florida case in Miami-Dade County, attorneys for gay couples noted that, after a long legal fight, the state finally allowed them to adopt children but refused to recognize them as married.

"That inequality stigmatizes the couples and their children as second-class citizens," attorney Sylvia Walbolt said. "Same-sex marriages are completely beneficial. They are entitled to the full protection of the Constitution."

Supporters of the gay marriage ban focused mainly on the 2008 referendum vote rather than whether same-sex marriages were harmful or beneficial. Anthony Verdugo, executive director of the Christian Family Coalition, said it was wrong for a single judge to overrule the will of a majority vote.

"The people of the state have the right to decide," Verdugo said.

Along with the similar lawsuit pending in Miami-Dade, a separate lawsuit is pending in a federal court in Tallahassee seeking to force Florida to allow gay marriage and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Florida has long been a battleground over gay rights. In the 1970s, singer and orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant led a successful campaign to overturn a Dade County ordinance that banned discrimination against gays. The county commission reinstated the ban two decades later.

Florida in 1977 became the only state that prohibited all gay people from adopting children. A state court judge threw out the law in 2008 when she found "no rational basis" for the ban when she approved the adoption of two young brothers by Martin Gill and his male partner. The state decided two years later not to appeal that ruling, making gay adoption legal.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 18, 2014, 11:13:48 am
http://news.yahoo.com/court-rules-gay-marriage-oklahoma-case-150854049.html
Court rules for gay marriage in Oklahoma case
7/18/14

DENVER (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled Oklahoma must allow gay couples to wed, marking the second time it has found the U.S. Constitution protects same-sex marriage.

The decision from a three-judge panel in Denver upholds rulings that struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban.

The 2-1 ruling comes after the same panel ruled June 25 that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the Constitution. It was the first time an appellate court determined last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act means states cannot deny gays the ability to wed.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel put its Oklahoma and Utah rulings on hold pending an appeal. Utah's attorney general has said he plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Gay marriage in the two states will remain on hold.

Still, the decisions give increased momentum to a legal cause that has compiled an impressive string of lower court victories. More than 20 courts have issued rulings siding with gay marriage advocates since the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling in June 2013. The rulings have come in 17 states, with Florida being the latest.

Two of the most striking of those decisions were in conservative Utah and Oklahoma, which saw their voter-approved gay marriage bans struck down in December and January, respectively. In Utah, more than 1,000 same-sex couples married before the Supreme Court issued a stay.

It's unclear whether the two cases will be the first to reach the Supreme Court. The high court could choose from cases moving through five other federal appellate courts, and it won't consider a case until next year at the earliest.

Attorneys representing Utah and Oklahoma argued voters have the right to define marriage in their states, and unions between a man and woman are best for children.

Gay rights lawyers countered that voters cannot define marriage in a way that deprives gay people of their fundamental rights, and say there is no proof that gay couples make inferior parents.

Ten years ago, nearly a dozen states outlawed gay marriage. Now same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and recent polls show a majority of Americans support it.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 24, 2014, 12:16:47 pm
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-judge-colorado-gay-marriage-unconstitutional-20140723-story.html
U.S. judge in Colorado rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional
7/23/14

A federal judge in Colorado ruled Wednesday that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

However, the ruling was stayed pending an appeal.

The Wednesday ruling marks the 25th district court ruling against a gay marriage ban since last year’s Supreme Court rulings.

U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore’s decision stems from a lawsuit filed by six gay couples in the state who requested that the ban be thrown out.

The lawsuit, filed July 1 after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against Utah's gay marriage ban, named Gov. John Hickenlooper, Atty. Gen. John Suthers and Jefferson County clerk Pam Anderson as defendants.

The most recent ruling comes a week after the Colorado attorney general asked the state Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionally of the ban, and to also issue an injunction to stop rogue county clerks granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Boulder County is  now the only county in Colorado issuing licenses to couples after the Supreme Court ordered Denver County to stop and Pueblo County voluntarily stopped. As of Wednesday, Boulder County had issued at total of 181 same-sex marriage licenses.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 25, 2014, 09:25:53 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-marriage-ban-struck-down-miami-area-221745087.html
Same-sex marriage ban struck down for Miami area
7/25/14

MIAMI (AP) — A Florida judge on Friday overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in a ruling that applies to Miami-Dade County, agreeing with a judge in another county who made a similar ruling last week. Still, no marriage licenses will be issued for gay couples in either county any time soon to allow for appeals.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel mirrors the decision made earlier by Monroe County Circuit Judge Luis Garcia. Both found the constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters in 2008 discriminates against gay people. They said it violates their right to equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

"Preventing couples from marrying solely on the basis of their sexual orientation serves no governmental interest," Zabel wrote. "It serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society."

The effect of Garcia's ruling was put on hold when Republican Attorney General Pam Bondi filed notice of appeal. Zabel also stayed the effect of her ruling indefinitely to allow time for appeals, which could take months, and Bondi promptly followed up Friday by filing an appeal notice in the Miami-Dade case. The county of 2.6 million people is in the top 10 in population in the U.S.

Both judges were appointed by former Republican Gov. Jeb Bush and have been re-elected.

The legal battleground will next shift to the Miami-based 3rd District Court of Appeal for both cases, and most likely after that to the state Supreme Court. Nevertheless, Friday's ruling was cause for celebration for gay couples across the Miami area.
View gallery
FILE - In this July 9, 2014, file photo, shows people …
FILE - In this July 9, 2014, file photo, shows people looking on as they gather with about 50 same-s …

"It means so much for a court to recognize our family and say that we must be treated equally," said Catherina Pareto, one of the plaintiffs in the case. "We love this state and want nothing more than to be treated as equal citizens who contribute to the community and help make Florida an even better place for everyone who lives here."

Same-sex ban supporters argue that the referendum vote should be respected and that Florida has sole authority to define marriage in the state. The Florida amendment defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Gay marriage proponents have won more than 20 legal decisions around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Those rulings remain in various stages of appeal. Many legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately have to decide the question for all states.

Bondi said in a statement about the Monroe County case that "with many similar cases pending throughout the entire country, finality on this constitutional issue must come from the U.S. Supreme Court."

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia allow gay people to marry.
View gallery
FILE - In this Jan. 21, 2014, file photo, plaintiffs …
FILE - In this Jan. 21, 2014, file photo, plaintiffs Matthew Barraza, left, looks on as his husband  …

Republican Gov. Rick Scott has said he supports the amendment but opposes discrimination. His top Democratic challenger, former Gov. Charlie Crist, supports efforts to overturn it.

Florida has long been a gay rights battleground. In the 1970s, singer and orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant successfully campaigned to overturn a Dade County ordinance banning discrimination against gays. The county commission reinstated those protections two decades later.

In 1977, Florida became the only state prohibiting all gay people from adopting children. A state court judge threw out that law in 2008, finding "no rational basis" for that ban, and two years later, the state decided not to appeal, making gay adoption legal.

Gay marriage opponents said the rulings overturning the same-sex marriage ban disenfranchise nearly five million voters — the 62 percent who approved it nearly six years ago. Repealing the amendment would require at least 60 percent support.

"With one stoke of a pen, a mere trial judge has attempted to overthrow an act of direct democracy by five million Floridians who defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said John Stemberger, president Florida Family Policy Council, which pushed for passage of the amendment.

The cities of Orlando, Miami Beach and Key Biscayne filed legal papers supporting the gay couples' quest to have the marriage ban ruled unconstitutional. A separate lawsuit is pending in Tallahassee federal court seeking to both overturn Florida's gay marriage ban and force the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 28, 2014, 05:33:14 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-strikes-down-virginias-gay-marriage-ban-173325607.html
U.S. appeals court strikes down Virginia's gay marriage ban
7/28/14

Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, the latest in a string of court rulings across the country to back gay marriage.

A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled 2-1 to affirm a February ruling by a federal judge who struck down the state ban as unconstitutional.

Judges Roger Gregory and Henry Floyd wrote that barring gay couples from marrying violated rights to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

"Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance," they said.

Fifty-seven percent of voters approved Virginia's constitutional ban on gay marriage in 2006.

The panel's decision takes effect in 21 days, but could be stayed if the defendants ask the full court of appeals to review it.

In his dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer said there was no fundamental right to gay marriage. Defining marriage is best left up to the states, he said.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat who refused to defend the ban in court, said in a statement the ruling marked "a joyous and historic day for our Commonwealth."

But Byron Babione, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom that represented a county clerk sued over the marriage ban, said the clerk was considering an appeal. The Supreme Court ultimately must rule whether states can set rules for marriage, he said.

Monday's ruling could also affect gay marriage bans in other 4th Circuit states - North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, told reporters his office would stop defending the state's gay marriage ban in four cases challenging it.


Approval of same-sex marriage has gained speed since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that legally married same-sex couples were eligible for federal benefits.

Since the ruling, all the roughly 20 federal and state courts that have addressed the issue have ruled against state bans. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma in June.

Appeals are headed toward the Supreme Court, which could take up a gay marriage case in the term that begins this October.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 28, 2014, 06:30:14 pm
Video: http://news.yahoo.com/video/attorney-general-roy-cooper-wont-221357478.html
7/28/14

Attorney General Roy Cooper won't defend gay marriage ban
WTVD – Raleigh/Durham 2:11 mins

North Carolina's attorney general said Monday his office will no longer defend the state's voter-approved ban on same sex marriage in court after a federal appeals court ruled a similar prohibition in neighboring Virginia unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 29, 2014, 05:42:47 pm
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0729/In-Bible-Belt-gay-marriage-rights-increasingly-in-flux
7/29/14
In Bible Belt, gay marriage rights increasingly in flux

After a federal appeals court on Monday ruled against state gay marriage bans, North Carolina's attorney general said 'there are no more arguments to be made' against same-sex marriage. Not all in the Bible Belt agree.


Atlanta — After a federal appeals court on Monday struck down a gay marriage ban backed by 57 percent of voters in Virginia, Roy Cooper, attorney general for Virginia’s neighbor, North Carolina, hoisted a surrender flag.

“There’s no argument left” against banning two consenting adults of the same sex from getting hitched, he said. Mr. Cooper, a Democrat, announced that he will no longer defend the state's gay-marriage ban in court.

The Monday ruling by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., binds federal judges throughout its entire Bible Belt jurisdiction: West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The ruling will not legally take effect for another three weeks, during which time the defendants can appeal and demand a stay of the order.

The 2-to-1 decision is important on several levels, with the court supporting a fundamental constitutional right for gays to marry and the ruling coming in a state where half a century ago – in Loving v. Virginia – the US Supreme Court said that government can’t keep white and black people from marrying. Moreover, it adds to the likelihood that the Supreme Court will at some point take up the issue.

But the Fourth Circuit’s ruling also comes at a time when the cultural and political battle over gay rights is in full swing throughout the South.

The conflict between post-Civil War “equal rights” amendments to the Constitution can still chafe against the precepts, and argued primacy, of certain interpretations of the Bible in the South. In this case, Bible passages say homosexuality is sinful, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says the federal government can uphold basic individual rights, even against the wishes of a majority.

These two forces are openly clashing. Earlier this year, for example, Georgia briefly considered mimicking a failed Arizona bill that would’ve allowed religious business owners to discriminate against gay people by refusing service. But the bill was quickly squashed by establishment Republicans, who saw the possible backlash and boycotts from such a “Christian shield” law as far worse than any potential gains.

Yet, at the same time, the legal and cultural foundations for gay marriage bans in the South are being shaken.

Mississippi, where gay marriage is illegal, has the highest percentage of gay couples raising children, according to a report by the Williams Center at the University of California at Los Angeles, which studies gender identity law and policy. And Mississippi is not an outlier: Socially conservative states, many in the South, have higher rates of gay couples raising kids, the Williams Center found. Virginia has 2,500 gay couples raising some 4,000 children.

Different studies have also found that Southern gays are not cloistered only in Atlanta neighborhoods like Midtown and Buckhead. One in 10 couples in rural and mountainous Fannin County, Ga., is gay, according to 2010 census figures. And acceptance is quickly spreading. Today, half of Southerners support gay marriage, a March Washington Post/ABC News poll found.

And this spring, following a district court ruling, Arkansas began allowing gay marriage. The state issued marriage certificates to 15 gay couples in May, the first such documents ever to be signed in the Bible Belt.

In gay-friendly Blue Ridge, Ga., a Methodist minister named Doug Burrell summed up the mood in the South: “[A] lot of older folk here … struggle to adapt to new realities,” Mr. Burrell told the Guardian, a British newspaper. “And you know, this is the South. We’re polite to people but it doesn’t mean we like them.”

The practical effects of Monday’s ruling and Cooper’s decision to stop defending North Carolina's anti-gay marriage law won’t be known for a while. The US Supreme Court could take up the Fourth Circuit decision, and the North Carolina governor (a Republican) could take up the defense of the state ban on gay marriage.

Currently, 19 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages, while 31 states have statutes or constitutional amendments that bar same-sex marriage. So far, 19 lower court judges at both the federal and state level have struck down marriage bans.

Legal analysts contend that what made the Virginia ruling significant is that it was the first in a class-action suit, it leaned heavily on how states’ rights intersect, and touched on tradition versus equal rights. Judge Henry Floyd, writing for the majority, called the ban “precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance.” The 14th Amendment guarantees all US residents equal protection under the law.

In a dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer argued that for a gay marriage right to exist it has to have been rooted firmly in tradition, causing him to worry that a fundamental right to marriage could go awry – including giving the right “of a father to marry his daughter or the ‘right’ of any person to marry multiple partners.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 04, 2014, 04:25:00 pm
Broward County judge overturns Fla. same-sex marriage ban
Woman seeking dissolution of Vermont civil union not recognized in Fla.

http://www.local10.com/news/broward-county-judge-overturns-fla-samesex-marriage-ban/27301606
8/4/14

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -

A Broward County judge has overturned Florida's same-sex marriage ban, following in the footsteps of Miami-Dade County and the Keys.

Judge Dale Cohen issued the ruling Monday involving Heather Brassner and Megan Lade.

According to the ruling, Brassner and Lade entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2002. At the time, it was the only form of legal relationship involving same-sex couples in Vermont.

However, in 2009, the state allowed same-sex marriages and officially dissolved civil unions.

Because civil unions can only be dissolved when both individuals sign the requisite forms, Brassner sought to find Lade so that she can be married.

Brassner has been a legal Florida resident for 14 years, but the state doesn't recognize her civil union with Lade.

"She and Ms. Lade divided all their property, including real estate," the judge wrote. "Their civil union has been dead for years. But both are still locked in this legal relationship with no other avenue to dissolve it."

Cohen ruled that the state's ban is unconstitutional.

"That law infringes on my right to do what everyone else can," Brassner told Local 10 News.

The decision comes after a judge in Monroe County became the first to overturn the state's ban last month. A Miami-Dade County judge made a similar ruling eight days later.

Just like those rulings, Cohen's decision doesn't mean marriage licenses will be issued right away. A stay is in place while the state appeals.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 06, 2014, 07:54:52 am
http://news.yahoo.com/court-hearing-gay-marriage-arguments-4-states-050621253.html
Court hearing gay marriage arguments from 4 states
8/6/14

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in six gay marriage fights from four states — Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee — in the biggest such session on the issue so far.

Three judges of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will consider arguments Wednesday that pit states' rights and traditional, conservative values against what plaintiffs' attorneys say is a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. Large demonstrations are expected outside the courthouse by both opponents and supporters.

Michigan's and Kentucky's cases stem from rulings striking down each state's gay marriage bans. Ohio's case deals only with the state's recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, while Tennessee's is narrowly focused on the rights of three same-sex couples.

Attorneys on both sides in the Michigan and Ohio cases will go first and get a half-hour each to make their cases. Kentucky and Tennessee will follow, with 15 minutes for each side from both states.

Hundreds of gay marriage supporters rallied Tuesday at a park near Cincinnati's riverfront on the eve of the court arguments.

The Rev. Mary Moore of Dayton, interim minister at the Miami Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship church, says she has performed many services of "holy union" for same-sex couples, but they are not recognized by the state.

"It's not fair that all of the marriages I perform aren't allowed to be on an equal basis," she said.

Mason Gersh, 19, of Louisville, Kentucky, said he hoped to be inside the courthouse to hear the legal arguments. "Equality for all is a civil right, and we all need to fight for that," said Gersh, who is gay.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year, gay marriage advocates have won more than 20 victories in federal courts. No decision has gone the other way in that time.

Constitutional law professors and court observers say the 6th Circuit could deliver the first victory to gay marriage opponents.

The three judges hearing the case are Jeffrey S. Sutton and Deborah L. Cook, both nominees of President George W. Bush, and Martha Craig Daughtrey, a pick of President Bill Clinton.

Sutton is considered the least predictable, shocking Republicans in 2011 when he became the deciding vote in a 6th Circuit ruling that upheld President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul.

If the 6th Circuit decides against gay marriage, that would create a divide among federal appeals courts and put pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the issue for good in its 2015 session.

Two federal appeals courts already have ruled in favor of gay marriage, one in Denver in June and another in Richmond, Virginia, last week. On Tuesday, Utah appealed the ruling from the Denver-based court, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case and uphold the state's ban.

The 6th Circuit is the first of three federal appeals courts to hear arguments from multiple states in August and September.

The 7th Circuit in Chicago has similar arguments set for Aug. 26 for bans in Wisconsin and Indiana. The 9th Circuit in San Francisco is set to take up bans in Idaho and Nevada on Sept. 8.

Gay marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 06, 2014, 07:21:48 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/06/gay-marriage-hearings_n_5656284.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592#
8/6/14
Judge: 'It Doesn't Look Like The Sky Has Fallen In' Because Of Gay Marriage

CINCINNATI (AP) — A federal appeals judge hearing arguments about gay marriage bans in four states says "it doesn't look like the sky has fallen in" in other states that allow same-sex marriage.

Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey made the comment Wednesday in Cincinnati as she and two other judges on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned lawyers on both sides during the biggest court session yet of federal legal battles over gay marriage. They were hearing cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Another judge, Jeffrey Sutton, repeatedly asked whether trying to get the issue changed before the U.S. Supreme Court was the right course instead of waiting for popular change.

The judges didn't indicate when they would rule in the cases.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 12, 2014, 06:42:30 pm
Don't be fooled by this - there's (likely)going to be one last showdown at the USSC over this next year(and this time to legalize SSM in America - at least from what the MSM has been telegraphing).

http://www.examiner.com/article/gay-marriage-news-same-sex-marriage-ban-upheld-tn-heads-to-trial-mo
Gay marriage news: Same-sex marriage ban upheld in TN; heads to trial in MO
8/12/14

Monday was an interesting and shocking day for the gay marriage fight in two states. In a surprise decision, Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons Jr. upheld Tennessee’s gay marriage ban. The ruling ended a string of legal victories for gay marriage. The state of Missouri is hoping to get back on the winning track as a legal challenge to the state’s gay marriage ban returned to court.

The ruling by Simmons is surprising because of the trend set fourth by the Supreme Court’s historic ruling back in June of 2013. In a monumental decision for gay marriage, the court overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Since then, many federal courts throughout the nation have been overruling state bans as unconstitutional. Simmons, however, feels the state of Tennessee does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause based on the state’s interests.

Simmons wrote, “There is nothing irrational about limiting the institution of marriage for the purpose for which it was created, by embracing its traditional definition. To conclude otherwise is to impose one’s own view of what a State ought to do on the subject of same-sex marriage.”

While Simmons’ ruling contradicts the 30 other marriage-related rulings, it serves as a reminder that there is still a long road ahead for full marriage equality rights for gay and lesbian couples in all 50 states. The decision could have an impact on the legal challenge in Missouri.

According to the Associated Press, the challenge is on a path to head to trial next month after returning to a St. Louis court Monday. The legal challenge was inspired by victories in surrounding states. St. Louis officials began issuing marriage licenses, but agreed to stop issuing licenses to gay couples until a resolution is reached on the state and federal level.

There was also movement in the state of Indiana. The attorney general’s office filed its final brief with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. Attorneys are asking the federal appeals court to overrule a judge who overturned the state’s ban. They are arguing that traditional marriage is in the interest of the state. Indiana’s case is being combined with Wisconsin’s case as oral arguments in the combined case are scheduled for Aug. 26.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 12, 2014, 06:55:55 pm
I'm not 100% sure on this, but if there's going to a final showdown on SSM at the USSC next year, I see why there will be a few or so states that will uphold their bans...

So that ecumenicism will be pushed further - where they will get all of the "evangelicals" with the Catholics, Mormons, JWs, and other pagan religions to unite together(like they've done with every other political agenda).

I'm not saying they're wrong for expressing their opposition to SSM, but these "evangelicals" are falling into a trap - if anything, the globalist minions will put out a couple of MINOR victories(like TN upholding their ban) to make everything look like there's a *tad bit of hope*.

Ultimately, the damage has been done - Rick Warren/Emergent Church have infiltrated AIDS organizations into the Apostate Church, and there's this whole Matthew Vines hoopla that's infiltrated too. And not to mention too all of these perversions condone sodomy.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 13, 2014, 12:10:30 pm
Yep, for every *minor* victory, there's like 3-4 major losses...

http://news.yahoo.com/delay-denied-ruling-va-gay-marriage-ban-161454741.html
Delay denied in ruling on Va. gay marriage ban
8/13/14

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court refused Wednesday to delay its ruling striking down Virginia's gay marriage ban, which means that same-sex couples could begin marrying in the state as early as next week.

The state would also need to start recognizing marriages from out of state by next Wednesday, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court does not intervene.

A county clerk in northern Virginia had asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond to stay its decision, issued in late July, while it is appealed to the high court. The appeals court's order did not explain why it denied that request.

Ken Connelly, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Prince William County Clerk of Court Michele B. McQuigg in the case, said the group will seek an emergency stay from the nation's highest court "as soon as possible." That request will go to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for the 4th Circuit.

Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2006 that banned gay marriage and prohibited the recognition of such marriages performed in other states. The appeals court ruling overturning that ban was the third such ruling by a federal appeals court and the first in the South.

Last week, a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati considered arguments regarding six cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Some observers have said the 6th Circuit may be the first to uphold statewide gay marriage bans after more than 20 consecutive rulings in the past eight months striking them down.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 21, 2014, 09:12:00 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-was-gay-marriage-settled-in-1972-case/2014/08/17/1a5e41f8-23c6-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?
8/17/14

A whole lot of judges who are being asked to decide whether states may ban same-sex couples from marrying think the Supreme Court clearly gave them the answer last year: no.

But a few judges think the Supreme Court provided the answer more than 40 years ago: yes.

That reading comes from a one-sentence order the court issued in a 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, which said there was no “substantial federal question” in a state’s decision to ban same-sex marriages.

The dismissal of that long-ago case might be the reason that same-sex marriage supporters see their winning streak in federal courts come to an end.

And it could give lower court judges, who know the ultimate answer on same-sex marriage will come from the Supreme Court, a way to uphold voter-approved state bans without deciding the thorny constitutional questions that accompany the issue.

A Tennessee state judge recently cited Baker in a limited decision that upheld Tennessee’s refusal to acknowledge same-sex marriages conducted where they are legal.

More importantly, the pivotal judge on a three-member appeals court panel reviewing decisions that struck restrictive laws in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky questioned lawyers extensively about whether Baker precluded the panel from deciding the merits of the cases.

A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to uphold the laws would create a conflict with two other appeals courts that have found state bans unconstitutional and almost surely force the Supreme Court to settle the issue sooner rather than later.

The Baker case started in 1970, when Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, two gay activists at the University of Minnesota, applied for and were denied a marriage license (it wasn’t just a test; their relationship lasted).

They sued, and the Minnesota Supreme Court had made short work of rejecting their claim: that the state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex violated the U.S Constitution’s protection of the fundamental right to marry.

The American Civil Liberties Union asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, but the justices needed neither briefing nor oral argument to turn down the request.

“The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question” is the entirety of the court’s action.

Even such summary dismissals from the Supreme Court bind lower courts hearing similar cases, unless there have been substantial “doctrinal developments” in high court precedent to render them obsolete.

Baker v. Nelson was cited by opponents of same-sex marriage in the two cases the Supreme Court decided in 2013 — U.S. v. Windsor, concerning a key section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, about California’s state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The precedent, however, got short shrift. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the lawyer representing defenders of California’s ban that the short Supreme Court opinion had been overtaken by other developments in the law.

At the time of Baker, Ginsburg said during oral argument, “The Supreme Court hadn’t even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny. And the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many states in 1971, so I don’t think we can extract much in Baker v. Nelson.”

When the court struck down that part of DOMA, and decided procedural problems prevented it from ruling on the merits in the California case, Baker was not mentioned.

So does that mean the justices found Baker is a relic, or that it was simply unnecessary to its opinions in the two cases, and remains binding on lower courts?

Almost all the judges who have looked at the question find the former. The court’s subsequent decisions protecting gays from laws that single them out and finding that homosexual contact cannot be criminalized point in that direction, they say.

In its 2-to-1 decision striking Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban, the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit noted that all federal court decisions since the Windsor decision have found that Baker was no obstacle to deciding the merits of the cases.

“The Supreme Court’s willingness to decide Windsor without mentioning Baker speaks volumes regarding whether Baker remains good law,” wrote Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd.

It was the court’s rejection of the federal definition of marriage that compelled the decision that state bans are also unconstitutional, Floyd said, because it reflected the trajectory of the court’s changing view of discrimination.


“These cases demonstrate that, since Baker, the Court has meaningfully altered the way it views both sex and sexual orientation through the equal protection lens.”

Dissenting judges in the 4th Circuit and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which overturned bans in Utah and Oklahoma, felt otherwise.

But it might be even more important in the 6th Circuit, where oral arguments earlier this month indicated that Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton will control the decision regarding the laws in the four states.

Sutton is a favorite of the conservative legal establishment and has often championed judicial minimalism, reluctant to have courts intervene in matters he thinks should be left to the democratic process.

**But he voted to UPHOLD Obamacare as law...Uhm...didn't he violate his own ideologies right there?

He repeatedly asked lawyers challenging the bans why his court should not feel bound by Baker, since the Supreme Court has never found reason to overturn it.

Concluding that Baker gave the court no power to reach the merits of whether states may ban same-sex marriage would simply move the issue to the Supreme Court.

And supporters of gay marriage say privately that it would be the best way for them to lose: the justices themselves are under no obligation to affirm that their predecessors decided 40 years ago.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 26, 2014, 03:13:58 pm
Health-Care Fears Loom Large in Gay Marriage Cases
INDIANAPOLIS — Aug 25, 2014, 5:59 PM ET
By RICK CALLAHAN Associated Press
Associated Press

When Niki Quasney felt a piercing pain in her ribcage in March, the oncologist treating her advanced ovarian cancer told her to get to an emergency room immediately.

But instead of making the short drive to a hospital near her home in Munster, Indiana, she drove alone for more than 40 minutes to one in neighboring Illinois. Quasney said she was "terrified" her local hospital might not allow her and her partner of more than 13 years, whom she wed last year in another state, to be together if she suffered a health emergency.

Quasney and her partner, Amy Sandler, are among dozens of couples challenging Indiana's and Wisconsin's gay marriage bans in a case being heard Tuesday in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Looming large in the case is the issue of medical emergencies faced by same-sex couples.

Crowds of supporters attended rallies in both states Monday and boarded Chicago-bound buses to support the plaintiffs, who are suing for the right to marry or to have their out-of-state marriages recognized. They argue that powers of attorney and domestic partner registries don't guarantee they'll be allowed to make critical end-of-life or life-saving decisions.

No legal document, they say, can provide the same protections as a marriage certificate.

Judi Trampf said that became clear when her partner of 25 years, Katy Heyning, suffered a seizure in New Orleans several years ago. The Madison, Wisconsin, couple had health care powers-of-attorney allowing each other to make medical decisions for the other, but that paperwork was at home.

Trampf told hospital workers Heyning was her domestic partner, but she said they refused to allow her to make any decisions without the documents. When Trampf tried to answer questions for Heyning, who was having trouble responding after regaining consciousness, the hospital staff ignored her.

"That's when I realized I really didn't have any rights in the situation," Trampf said in a recent telephone interview. "Heterosexual couples don't have to pull out anything."

Judges have overturned numerous states' gay marriage bans since last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the federal government to recognize state-sanctioned gay marriages. Same-sex marriage is now legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and the remaining state bans all face legal challenges.

Henry Greene, who along with his partner of 23 years, Glenn Funkhouser, and their son were among nearly 100 people at an Indianapolis rally, said he believes same-sex marriage will eventually be legal nationwide.

"We're pretty confident in the final outcome," he said. "It's playing out pretty much like all the experts said it would."

In Milwaukee, rally goers blew bubbles and held supportive signs as same-sex couples and their supporters boarded a bus for Chicago, where they plan to listen to Tuesday's arguments.

Federal judges struck down the bans in Wisconsin and Indiana in June, and hundreds of couples married in the two states before those rulings were put on hold following requests by the states' attorneys general. The cases were combined on appeal because both states' federal courts fall under the 7th Circuit.

 Attorneys for Wisconsin and Indiana will defend the bans Tuesday. Indiana's attorney general argued in the state's final brief ahead of the hearing that traditional marriage is in the interest of the state, while a recent brief by Wisconsin's attorney general contends there is no fundamental right to gay marriage.

Indiana also argued it was premature to require the state to change its definition of marriage until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue. Attorneys for both sides expect the issue to eventually land in the high court.

The appeals court did, however, let stand a specific order by the lower court that required Indiana to recognize the marriage between Quasney, 38, and Sandler, 37, because Quasney is dying. The women, who married in Massachusetts and have 3-year-old and 1-year-old daughters, are currently the only same-sex couple whose marriage is recognized in Indiana.

Paul Castillo, an attorney for the national gay rights group Lambda Legal, which is representing the couple and several others in the Indiana case, said health care is among the central issues.

"There's something to be said when a state recognizes a marriage and the dignity that confers on a couple who is undergoing crisis moments, not to be burdened with the possibility that when they seek emergency medical treatment or have to make decisions with regard to end of life, that those will not be honored," Castillo said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/health-care-fears-loom-large-gay-marriage-cases-25109103?page=2


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 04, 2014, 02:20:03 pm
FYI, don't be fooled by this - from what I've read, the establishment's end game is to get gay marriage legalized across the country(which is likely why showdown part 2 at the USSC will happen next summer). So obviously they're going to have to throw in a few "SSM losses" into the mix.

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-upholds-la-same-sex-marriage-ban-165757659.html
Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak
9/3/14

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge upheld Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriages on Wednesday, a rare loss for gay marriage supporters who had won more than 20 consecutive rulings overturning bans in other states.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman also upheld the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. His ruling was the first to uphold a state ban since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year.

Feldman himself acknowledged that his won't be the final word. "Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court," he wrote. "The decision of this Court is but one studied decision among many."

Gay rights advocates said they would carry the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which already has before it an appeal by the state of Texas of another federal judge's ruling that struck down that state's gay marriage ban.

In 2004, 78 percent of Louisiana voters approved an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Isabel Medina, a professor at the Loyola University New Orleans law school, said she didn't see the ruling as a significant road block for gay marriage advocates. Even a 5th Circuit decision upholding Feldman's ruling would affect only three states: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, she noted.

It's likely the Texas case will be the first to go to the 5th Circuit, and cases elsewhere likely will reach the Supreme Court before Louisiana's, said Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia. Nevertheless, he said, Feldman's ruling is significant.

"It is important, because Feldman is a very experienced federal district judge, and no other federal judge has ruled that way at the trial level," Tobias said in a telephone interview. Feldman was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.

**Ah...but it was a Reagan-appointee who overturned California's SSM ban in 2010. And it was also a Reagan USSC appointee who overturned parts of DOMA last year(Anthony Kennedy).


Feldman said gay marriage supporters failed to prove that the ban violates equal protection or due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution. He also rejected an argument that the ban violated the First Amendment by effectively forcing legally married gay couples to state that they are single on Louisiana income tax returns.

Feldman sided with the state, which had argued that the nation's high court, in the Defense of Marriage Act decision, recognized the rights of state voters and legislatures to define marriage.

"Although opinions about same-sex marriage will understandably vary among the states, and other states in free and open debate will and have chosen differently, that does not mandate that Louisiana has overstepped its sovereign authority," he wrote.

The conservative Louisiana Family Forum praised the ruling.

"This ruling confirms that the people of Louisiana — not the federal courts — have the constitutional right to decide how marriage is defined in this state," Gene Mills, the group's president, said in a news release.

Gay marriage advocates argued that the ban violated constitutional due process and equal-protection rights.

"Every citizen of the United States deserves protection of their rights, uphill climb or not," said Mary Griggs, chairwoman of Forum for Equality Louisiana.

Feldman said the Supreme Court decision "correctly discredited" the Defense of Marriage Act's effect on New York law legalizing same-sex unions. But he also noted language in the decision outlining the states' historic authority to recognize and define marriage.

He also said that neither the Supreme Court nor the 5th Circuit has defined gay people as a protected class in discrimination cases.

"In light of still-binding precedent, this Court declines to fashion a new suspect class. To do so would distort precedent and demean the democratic process," Feldman wrote.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering arguments over six gay marriage cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Two other appellate courts, the 10th Circuit in Denver and the 4th Circuit in Virginia, have overturned statewide gay marriage bans in Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. However, those rulings and others overturning gay marriage bans have been put on hold while appeals are considered.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 04, 2014, 03:42:49 pm
http://journalgazette.net/article/20140904/LOCAL06/140909729
 Last updated: September 4, 2014 3:32 p.m.
Indiana's gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

INDIANAPOLIS - The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday issued a lightning-fast ruling finding Indiana's gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

It came just nine days after the Indiana and Wisconsin cases were argued before the three-judge panel.

"The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction - that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended - is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously," the ruling said.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller is expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The questioning of the state's attorneys by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges was harsh and the decision not a surprise given the demeanor.

In late June, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young tossed out Indiana’s ban on gay marriage, saying “it is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love.”

Hundreds of gay couples around the state ran to courthouses and got married in the days following, before the 7th Circuit issued a stay of the ruling.

The case involved three different lawsuits on behalf of a number of couples seeking the freedom to marry in Indiana or recognition of a marriage from another state.

The decision also ordered immediate recognition of all out-of-state same-sex marriages in Indiana.

The Indiana law withstood a state challenge in 2005 when the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the statute defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But this time, plaintiffs took their case to the federal system, where other state statutes have been struck down.

Specifically, Young ruled that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause and due process clause.

Indiana lawmakers this year fought over whether to put the state’s traditional definition of marriage into the Indiana Constitution, which would have presumably protected it from a state court ruling.

But they had no control over the federal courts.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 04, 2014, 07:00:10 pm
^^ Wisconsin was included too...

http://news.msn.com/us/court-rules-against-gay-marriage-bans-in-2-states
Court rules against gay marriage bans in 2 states
9/4/14

CHICAGO (AP) — A U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana violate the U.S. Constitution, in another in a series of courtroom wins for gay-marriage advocates.

The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago criticized the justifications both states gave for the bans, several times singling out the argument that marriage between a man and a woman is tradition. There are, the court noted, good and bad traditions.

"Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad — such as trick-or-treating on Halloween," it said. "Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination-regardless of the age of the tradition."

Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in some other states continue to make their way through the courts. Since last year, the vast majority of federal rulings have declared same-sex marriages bans unconstitutional.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B Van Hollen said he would appeal Thursday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin and Indiana cases shifted to Chicago after attorneys general in the states appealed separate lower court rulings in June that tossed the bans. The 7th Circuit stayed those rulings pending its own decision on the cases, which were considered simultaneously.

Between the bans being struck down and the order reinstating them as the appeals process ran its course, hundreds of gay couple in both states rushed to marry. Those marriages could have been jeopardized had the 7th Circuit restored the bans.

By standards of the 7th circuit, the decision was unusually fast — coming just nine days after oral arguments — suggesting unanimity came easily to the panel.

Judge Richard Posner, an appointee of Repubican President Ronald Reagan in 1981, wrote Thursday's opinion for the panel. During oral arguments, it was Posner who fired the toughest questions at defenders of the bans, often expressing exasperation at their answers.

The ruling echoes his comments during oral arguments that "hate" underpinned the gay-marriage bans, saying, "Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world."

The states argued that the prohibitions helped foster a centuries-old tradition of marriage between men and women, and that the regulation of the institution of marriage was a tool for society to attempt to prevent pregnancies out of wedlock.

Thursday's opinion went back to that issue repeatedly, noting that some traditions, such as shaking hands or men wearing ties, may "seem silly" but "are at least harmless."

That, though, is not the case when it comes to gay-marriage bans, the court said.

"If no social benefit is conferred by a tradition and it is written into law and it discriminates against a number of people and does them harm beyond just offending them, it is not just a harmless anachronism; it is a violation of the equal protection clause," the opinion says.

A constitutional amendment approved in 2006 by voters banned gay marriage in Wisconsin, while state law prohibited it in Indiana. Neither state recognized same-sex marriages performed in others states.

In court filings, attorneys representing Wisconsin and Indiana argued that nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevented them from implementing and enforcing the bans. Gay-marriage advocates said they violated equal protection guarantees.

In addition to Posner — whom Ronald Reagan appointed in 1981 — the judges on the 7th Circuit panel included 2009 Barack Obama appointee David Hamilton and Ann Claire Williams, a 1999 Bill Clinton appointee.

**Wasn't it a Reagan appointee that upheld the SSM ban in Louisiana yesterday? Now another one goes contrary and strikes it down?

Though Wisconsin says it will appeal, there's no guarantee that the U.S Supreme Court will take up the case.

But the threat prompted Scott McDonnell, the Dane County Clerk in Madison, Wisconsin, who had married gay couples after that state's law was initially struck down by a federal judge, to say he wouldn't resume marrying same-sex couples.

"We're in a little bit of a holding pattern for a couple weeks," McDonnell said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 09, 2014, 12:10:24 am
http://news.msn.com/us/hearing-over-gay-marriage-laws-underway
Hearing over gay marriage laws underway
9/8/14

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court in San Francisco waded again into the debate over the constitutionality of gay marriage, with attorneys for both sides arguing over whether legalizing it would harm children.

The three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — two of whom have ruled in previous cases in favor of gay rights — reserved many of their most pointed questions at the defenders of state bans in Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii.

Judge Marsha Berzon appeared critical of the attorney defending two of the bans, saying he was sending a message that families headed by same-sex couples were "second-rate."

"You're sending a message that these are less desirable families" she said. "That is what you're doing. That is what you say you're doing."

The hearing is the first time since it declared California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional that the 9th Circuit is listening to arguments over same-sex weddings in a political and legal climate that's vastly different than when it overturned Proposition 8 in 2012. State and federal court judges have been striking down bans in more than a dozen states at a rapid rate since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year.

Attorney Monte Neil Stewart faced tough questions from Berzon as he defended Idaho's ban.

Stewart told the panel that same-sex marriage would undermine children's right to be raised by a father and mother. Same-sex marriage would undercut the message that a man who fathers a child should get in a relationship with the female mother, he said.

"This is a contest between two different messages," Stewart said. "The message of man-woman marriage is: 'Men, you're valuable and important in the upbringing of the children you bring into this world. Women, you are valuable and important in the upbringing of children you bring into this world.' Genderless marriage does not send that message, indeed it undermines it."

Berzon questioned how gay marriage differed from the current model of marriage, which she called "genderless." Berzon said that with gay marriages occurring, "the train has already left the station."

Deborah Ferguson, an attorney representing gay marriage supporters opposed to Idaho's ban, said children of same-sex couples don't have the same protections as children of heterosexual couples.

"(They) don't have two legal parents to protect them," she said. "That is sending a powerful message. That tells those children that their parents' marriages aren't worthy of respect. That's a very harsh message."

The 9th Circuit heard arguments about Nevada and Hawaii's gay marriage ban as well.

Attorney Tara Borelli said Nevada's gay marriage ban sends a message to same-sex couples that they and their families are inferior. The ban is particularly damaging to children and humiliates them, Borelli said.

Stewart argued in favor the Nevada ban in part on the basis that states had the right to make choices about gay marriage.

Advocates of gay marriage in Hawaii have urged a federal appeals court to dismiss a case filed by same-sex couples, saying it was now moot because the state legislature had approved gay marriages.

Clyde Wadsworth, who represents gay couples, told the judges that the original parties to the case now agree they no longer have any disputes.

But Kenneth Connelly, of the Hawaii Family Forum, said the issues in the case could still resurface if the Hawaii Supreme Court strikes down the state's same-sex marriage law.

The 9th Circuit in 2012 invalidated Proposition 8 because it singled out a minority group for disparate treatment for no compelling reason. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case last year without ruling on the legal merits of gay marriage.

The numerous gay marriage rulings in recent months, including one by the federal appeals court in Chicago rejecting bans in Wisconsin and Indiana and another by a federal judge affirming Louisiana's law, have raised pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the issue. Last week, 15 states that allow gay marriage and 17 that don't asked the high court to weigh in.

The pro-gay marriage rulings have used the rationale the Supreme Court employed in June 2013 when it invalidated the core of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman for determining federal benefits. That ruling led to an explosion of litigation.

Nineteen states and Washington, D.C., now allow gay marriages.

The case for gay marriage was bolstered when the court earlier this week unveiled the names of the three judges assigned to decide the issue in those three states. Judges Berzon and Ronald Gould were appointed by President Bill Clinton. And Judge Stephen Reinhardt, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, is considered one of the most politically liberal jurists on the 29-judge court. Reinhardt wrote the 2012 opinion striking down California's gay marriage ban.

Reinhardt, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel that also included Berzon, also held that striking someone from a jury pool because he or she is gay constitutes unlawful discrimination. Less than a month after Reinhardt's gay-juror ruling on Jan. 21, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican seeking re-election this year, said the state would no longer fight a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Nevada's gay marriage ban because "it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court."

The 9th Circuit panel is under no deadline to rule.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 13, 2014, 12:38:46 am
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arizona-marriage-ruling-20140912-story.html
U.S. judge orders Arizona to recognize gay marriage from California
9/12/14

A federal judge in Arizona ruled Friday that state officials must recognize the marriage of two men who were wed in California this year, though the ruling will not affect the ongoing fight to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage, court filings show.

In a 14-page ruling, U.S. District Judge John Sedwick found that Arizona officials must recognize the marriage of John McQuire and George Martinez, who were wed in California in July.

Martinez died of a terminal illness this year, and McQuire was demanding that Arizona officials release a death certificate recognizing him as Martinez's husband.

"Couples in America should not have to play 'now you're married, now you're not' depending on which state they are in when a tragedy strikes, and states should not pick and choose which marriages they will respect and which they won’t as if we did not have one Constitution protecting all of us," Evan Wolfson, president of the same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said in a statement.

Nineteen plaintiffs are challenging Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage, though the ruling Friday was limited to recognition of McQuire and Martinez's marriage.

McQuire sued in the hope of gaining access to Martinez's social security benefits as his legal spouse, though Sedwick wrote in the ruling that it was unlikely McQuire would gain access to them because Martinez died less than nine months after the couple wed -- the government minimum for benefits to transfer to a spouse.

Though Sedwick mostly avoided discussing the constitutionality of Arizona's ban in his ruling, he did note that it was "probable that there is such a conflict so that Arizona will be required to permit same-sex marriages."

Lambda Legal, the LGBT rights group that represented McQuire, praised Sedwick's ruling as a way to honor Martinez, who was a military veteran. McQuire is also seeking veteran death benefits.

“The way the state has fought this simple issue of awarding a disabled vet the respect he deserves is shameful," Jennifer C. Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, said in a statement. "George would have  been thrilled with this outcome—all he ever wanted to do was take care of Fred and Judge Sedwick’s order will make sure his last wish is fulfilled.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 21, 2014, 08:25:32 am
The Stunning Velocity Of The Marriage Equality Movement

The direction and pace of court decisions about same-sex couples’ marriages rights in the past 15 months brought the issue back to the Supreme Court with unanticipated speed. All that remains is the justices’ decision whether to hear a case this term. posted on Sept. 17, 2014, at 8:55 p.m.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-stunning-velocity-of-the-marriage-equality-movement#2fi2oy5

WASHINGTON — When a federal court ruled on Louisiana’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages earlier this month, something shocking happened: The judge upheld the ban.

U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman ruled the state’s marriage ban was constitutional — issuing the first federal court decision examining the question and finding such a ban to be constitutionally permissible in more than a year.

Even he realized this was an unusual decision. “It would no doubt be celebrated to be in the company of the near-unanimity of the many other federal courts that have spoken to this pressing issue,” Feldman wrote in his opinion.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and dismissed the California Proposition 8 case on a technicality in June 2013, federal judges all across the country have thrown out bans on marriage for same-sex couples and bans on the recognition of marriages performed out of state, creating an avalanche of decisions rolling toward the Supreme Court. Judges from Texas to Michigan and from Oregon to Florida have ruled marriage bans unconstitutional. The nation’s top lawyers are jockeying for their cases to become The Case.

The direction and pace of the marriage decisions — their sheer velocity — is unlike any other debate in modern politics or law. In the space of a little more than a year, the timeline for any sort of legal resolution of the issue has completely shifted.

And now, on Sept. 29, the Supreme Court justices are due to consider whether to hear one or more of a handful of marriage cases that could produce the final blow.
The marriage equality movement — work that began decades earlier and was full of setbacks, including DOMA itself, along the way — is on the precipice of becoming a reality.

Fifteen months ago, very few imagined this rapid a timeline. But the decisions that day, specifically what Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia wrote, ultimately opened the floodgates for what followed. Of DOMA, Kennedy declared the law unconstitutional because it “instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.” And in his dissent to that opinion, Scalia noted “how easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”

That’s exactly what’s happened.

Since then, three federal appeals courts and nearly every federal trial judge to consider whether state bans on same-sex couples’ marriages are permitted has declared them to be unconstitutional.


It didn’t necessarily follow from the DOMA decision in United States v. Windsor that this state of things was inevitable. Defenders of state bans — particularly in the immediate aftermath of the Windsor ruling — argued that Kennedy’s opinion was as much about federalism, about leaving marriage decisions to the states, as it was about equal protection of the laws.

But it didn’t even take an entire month for the first decision to come down.

Only weeks after Windsor, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black ruled on the case of an Ohio couple, who legally married in Maryland. One of the men, John Arthur, was in hospice care, “certain to die soon” from ALS. The couple sued Ohio to recognize their marriage on Arthur’s inevitable death certificate.

Writing that it was “not a complicated case,” Judge Black concluded that the purpose of Ohio’s 2004 amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying is “‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law.” In his decision, Black even cited Scalia’s words, noting, “[J]ust as Justice Scalia predicted in his animated dissent, by virtue of the present lawsuit, ‘the state-law shoe’ has now dropped in Ohio.” Their case — the matter of one death certificate — was one of a handful of moments that brought the movement from the DOMA decision day to today’s near-unanimity.

Black’s decision ordered recognition of their marriage under a temporary restraining order, a court action that cannot generally be appealed. But even after Arthur’s death in October 2013, Ohio officials continued fighting the case. Black issued a permanent injunction — a decision that could be and has been appealed to a higher court.

Days earlier, however, a federal judge handed down the ruling that — in retrospect — dramatically altered the national landscape for marriage, providing a cataclysmic force for federal judges in the United States.

On Dec. 20, 2013, a Friday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled that Utah’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages, passed by voters in 2004, is unconstitutional.

“[A]ny regulation adopted by a state,” Shelby wrote, “whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States.” Taking on the federalism argument, he wrote that the rights of the individual must take precedent over states’ rights when they’re in conflict.

In deciding the ultimate question, Shelby went even further, concluding that Utah “provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in any way by same-sex marriage. In the absence of such evidence, the State’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens.”

Then, Shelby did something that changed the path forward for marriage equality and may have — intentionally or inadvertently — sped up the course of equality more than almost any other single step since the Windsor decision: Shelby refused to put the ruling on hold while the state appealed his decision. If the decision in the constitutional question set the case on its course, the secondary decision not to issue a stay of the ruling set the pace.

Couples rushed to the Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office that Friday seeking out marriage licenses, including J. Seth and Michael Adam Ferguson — who became the first same-sex couple to marry in Utah. They live-tweeted the experience — which included officials at first uncertain about their authority to issue a license.

Judge Shelby formally denied the state’s request to stop the ruling from going into effect while the state appealed on Dec. 23. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals did the same, denying the request on Christmas Eve. The Supreme Court eventually granted the request on Jan. 6, but even the justices took their time in doing so, leading to what Derek Kitchen — a plaintiff in the Utah marriage case who is seeking to marry his partner, Moudi Sbeity — called “17 days of euphoria.” In all, more than 1,300 same-sex couples in Utah received marriage certificates before the stay was issued.

Shelby’s decision not to issue a stay, reinforced by the 10th Circuit, has empowered federal judges in other states — including Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — to do the same, as have state judges in Arkansas and Colorado. From Ann Arbor, Michigan, to Carroll County, Arkansas, same-sex couples got marriage licenses that many had never expected to see in their lifetimes.

Eventually, in all those states but Oregon and Pennsylvania (where state officials have made no appeals), appellate judges halted marriages in the states for the time being. But judges have asserted that holding off on implementing overturned bans was not justified; same-sex couples have been married in 25 states and the District of Columbia; and the Department of Justice elected to recognize the marriages of couples in Utah and in some of the other states. Coming from many angles, in many states, all over the country, the idea of marriage equality has become inevitable, a reality on the ground even before the legal issue is formally settled.

By time the federal appeals courts began hearing marriage arguments in April of this year, the national conversation appeared to be focused on “how” the question will be resolved legally, not “if.”

The 10th Circuit, followed by the 4th Circuit and, most recently, the 7th Circuit all have ruled marriage bans unconstitutional in the past three months. The 9th Circuit is expected to strike down Idaho and Nevada’s bans. Only the 6th Circuit — where the court’s key judge appeared conflicted at oral arguments over the Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee bans — potentially stands apart.

The speed with which all of these cases have moved forward — the 7th Circuit decision came down just nine days after the arguments in the case — has meant that the issue already is back at the Supreme Court. State or local officials in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin have asked the Supreme Court to hear their respective appeal of the marriage case in their state. The same-sex couples, moreover, agree: All of the plaintiffs challenging the bans have asked the justices to resolve the issue.

And so this unstoppable force of marriage equality will be meeting what could be an immovable object — the Supreme Court — on Sept. 29, when the justices consider whether to take any of the cases before the court.

On Tuesday in Minnesota, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined Kennedy’s opinion striking down DOMA in 2013, marveled at the “remarkable” shift in public opinion on marriage. But she noted that, if all appeals courts continued to be in agreement on the issue, there would be “no need for [the justices] to rush” on the issue. If the 6th Circuit upheld marriage bans, however, she said, the decision actually could have the result of adding “some urgency” to the issue for the justices.

The justices could decide to take a case on Sept. 29; they could deny the requests to take all of the appeals, which would lead to same-sex couples being able to marry in those states; or they could hold the cases for the future — awaiting a decision from the 6th Circuit, perhaps.

But the “remarkable” shift that Ginsburg described is one that exists across the nation, from the public to the lower courts. And though Ginsburg — in a technical, legal sense — might not see “urgency” to take a case immediately, the filings by the state officials and plaintiffs in the cases show that they have a sense of urgency and are looking for resolution.

Timothy Bostic, who is challenging Virginia’s marriage ban with his partner Tony London, spoke at a news conference a year ago regarding their challenge. Summing up the issue with a simplicity that echoes across the lawsuits and plaintiffs seeking marriage equality across the county, Bostic told the reporters assembled, “We filed this lawsuit because, although we’ve been together for more than two decades, we want our relationship to be recognized, just like everyone else’s. We want to be married.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 22, 2014, 11:37:56 pm
Quote
FYI, don't be fooled by this - from what I've read, the establishment's end game is to get gay marriage legalized across the country(which is likely why showdown part 2 at the USSC will happen next summer). So obviously they're going to have to throw in a few "SSM losses" into the mix.

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-upholds-la-same-sex-marriage-ban-165757659.html
Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

9/3/14

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/10341269-123/state-judge-rules-states-ban
Judge rules state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional

Ruling to have no immediate impact

9/22/14

LAFAYETTE — A state judge in Lafayette on Monday declared Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, a ruling that conflicts with a federal judge’s decision earlier this month upholding the state ban.

Fifteenth Judicial District Judge Edward Rubin’s decision, made in an adoption case involving two women in Lafayette, will have no immediate impact on the status of same-sex marriages in Louisiana.

Rubin’s strike at the ban is another salvo in a legal battle that soon could be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is a major win for Louisiana families, but it’s the first step in a long road,” said Chris Otten, chairman-elect of the Forum for Equality Louisiana.

The group led the recent challenge to Louisiana’s same-sex marriage ban in federal court in New Orleans.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman upheld the state law in a ruling earlier this month that went against the trend of federal judges in other states striking down similar bans.

The state will appeal Rubin’s Monday ruling to the Louisiana Supreme Court and has asked the judge to put his decision on hold pending the appeal, said attorney Kyle Duncan, who has been hired by the state Attorney General’s Office to handle challenges to Louisiana’s same-sex marriage ban and who also argued the case before Feldman.

“In Louisiana, the constitution defines marriages as that which occurs between a man and a woman. The state will continue to register marriages and adoptions according to that definition,” the Attorney General’s Office said in a written statement issued through Duncan.

Rubin’s ruling came in an adoption case involving Angela Costanza and Chasity Brewer, who were legally married in California and now live in Lafayette.

The adoption court case, as well as Rubin’s ruling, are sealed from public view, but an attorney representing the women, Joshua Guillory, said Costanza sought to be legally recognized as a parent to Brewer’s son.

As part of that process, the women first asked that their out-of-state marriage be recognized as legal in Louisiana, Guillory said.

Guillory said he received an OK from the judge to discuss only the broad outlines of Monday’s ruling.

He said Rubin found Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Constitution’s “full faith and credit clause,” which calls for each state to recognize the laws and court decisions of other states.

“They were legally married out of state,” Guillory said.

Duncan said he was perplexed that Rubin did not even mention Feldman’s ruling on the same issue just weeks before in federal court.

Keith Werhan, a constitutional law professor at Tulane University Law School, said he doesn’t believe a state judge in Lafayette has an obligation to follow Feldman’s decision, because Feldman serves in the New Orleans-based Eastern District of the federal court system in Louisiana and Lafayette Parish is in the Western District.

“Technically, it doesn’t have any power to bind them,” Werhan said.


Werhan also said he would expect the Louisiana Supreme Court to hold off ruling on any challenges to the same-sex ban that are based on the federal constitution, predicting the issue probably will be settled in short order by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision would trump a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court on the issue.

“Often, a (state) court in that circumstance would say, ‘We are going to stay back. … It’s all going to be resolved by the U.S Supreme Court,’ ” Werhan said.

Duncan said he plans to push forward with his appeal of Rubin’s ruling.

“We are going to ask to move this as quickly as possible,” he said. “We can’t know how quick the U.S. Supreme Court will react.”

Supporters of same-sex marriage counted the ruling as a major win, despite the still unsettled nature of the law.

“Today is a victory for Angela, Chasity and their son, Nicholas, to be sure, but it is also a victory for thousands of citizens who work hard and contribute to this state every day, hoping that one day soon they too will be allowed the freedom to marry the person they love,” Equality Louisiana President Tim S. West said in a written statement.

“Unlike Judge Feldman’s uninformed and mean-spirited ruling earlier this month that dismissed real Louisiana families, Judge Rubin’s ruling today demonstrates that Feldman doesn’t represent Louisiana values.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 25, 2014, 01:07:42 pm
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/better-late-than-never-expect-a-high-court-ok-on/article_9d40f166-3c6e-5cbc-bcef-9fa62d79bbc6.html
Better late than never: Expect a high court OK on marriage rights soon
9/24/14

Over the last year, lower federal court judges have removed most of the suspense from the questions of whether and when the Supreme Court might rule marriage equality to be a federal constitutional right. In case after case, in red states and blue, judges have ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. This makes it very likely that the Supreme Court will grant review in such a case this year, and even more likely, assuming it does, that it will rule that the Constitution requires states to extend marriage equality to gay couples.

Just one year ago, I wouldn’t have been nearly so confident in making such predictions. In June 2013, the court by a vote of 5 to 4 invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act, under which the federal government declined to recognize even those marriages between gay couples that were valid under state law.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States vs. Windsor was a masterpiece of intentional ambiguity, providing roughly equal amounts of support to two very different interpretations. On one hand, Kennedy’s opinion seemed to be grounded in concerns about the limited power of the federal government over marriage, a ruling that would have had no implications for state bans on same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, language in Kennedy’s opinion regarding the equal dignity and respect to which gay couples were entitled and the important interests of their children suggested that state prohibitions on gay marriage were vulnerable to constitutional challenge. One might reasonably have predicted after Windsor that lower federal court judges, who are no less politically polarized than the rest of the nation, would have divided roughly down the middle on how to interpret Windsor.

But that is not what has happened. In the year or so since Windsor, nearly two dozen federal courts have ruled on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. With only one exception (a district court in Louisiana), every court to consider the issue has ruled that the Constitution requires marriage equality. This is an extraordinary record of near-unanimity that transcends geographic region, age, sex, race and partisan affiliation.

When Windsor came down, most commentators assumed that the five justices in the majority would eventually be willing to invalidate state bans on same-sex marriage but that they preferred not to do so until public opinion had evolved further in support of marriage equality. In a case decided the same day as Windsor, the court ducked resolving the constitutionality of California’s ban on gay marriage, ruling instead that the official sponsors of Proposition 8 lacked standing to defend its constitutionality on appeal. But the striking number and near-unanimity of the recent lower court rulings can only help convince the justices in the Windsor majority that the country is increasingly prepared to accept gay marriage with little political backlash.

What should we make of such a ruling when it comes? Although the majority will undoubtedly use the occasion to celebrate the court’s historic role as protector of minority rights, such a decision will actually confirm the very limited sense in which the court performs that function. In fact, the entire course of American constitutional history reveals that the court defends minority rights only after a majority or near-majority of the country has come to deem those rights worthy of protection.

The court did not invalidate state-mandated racial segregation in education until 1954, by which time a narrow majority of the country agreed with the decision. The justices did not lift a finger in support of gender equality until 1971, after the powerful emergence of so-called second-wave feminism. During the first and second “Red scares,” the court put its imprimatur on the persecution of political radicals, and during World War II, it upheld the internment of Japanese Americans. Not until 1996 did the court first defend the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

In short, the justices are too much a product of their culture and historical moment to defend in any robust way the rights of unpopular minorities. To many Americans, schooled in the romantic myth of the court as heroic defender of minority rights, this lesson is deeply disturbing.

Who wouldn’t want a court that could have intervened to protect slaves rather than slaveholders challenge the Southern system of Jim Crow at its zenith rather than during its demise, strike down Japanese American internment and protect women’s equality and gay equality before it became fashionable to do so?

But neither our high court nor that of any other nation is equipped to perform such a function, and believing otherwise can be a dangerous delusion. The more realistic our assessment of the court’s capacity to protect minorities, the better we will appreciate the need for popular vigilance over politics.

Still, it is better for the court to protect minority rights late than never. Gay couples in states such as Mississippi and Alabama, where public support for gay rights remains relatively low, will be able to marry a decade or so before they otherwise could have plausibly done so because of a court ruling in favor of marriage equality.

Moreover, one might derive some solace from knowing that had the court tried to protect marriage equality much earlier, it probably would have generated a political backlash that would have retarded the cause. After the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1993 hinted at a state constitutional right to gay marriage, 35 states and Congress enacted defense-of-marriage laws.

And within five years of the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 decision squarely ruling in favor of gay marriage, nearly 30 states passed constitutional amendments barring it. Had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality as little as 10 or 15 years ago, the decision probably would have prompted the enactment of a federal constitutional amendment mandating marriage discrimination, which would have substantially delayed the ultimate triumph of marriage equality.


Thus, not only would it be unrealistic to have expected the court to reach the just outcome on marriage equality well in advance of public opinion, but for the justices to have done so might actually have delayed that result. As Abraham Lincoln frequently observed, in the United States, public opinion is everything. Even the Supreme Court cannot act very independently of its constraints.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 26, 2014, 11:07:29 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage/index.html
9/26/14
Justices poised to tackle constitutional right of same-sex marriage
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
updated 6:48 AM EDT, Fri September 26, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- The one-sentence order from the U.S. Supreme Court was brief but emphatic. The year was 1972 and the justices were asked to decide something extraordinary in that era: whether an openly gay couple from Minnesota had a "fundamental right" under the Constitution to legally wed.

In just 13 words, the court under Chief Justice Warren Burger dismissed the Baker v. Nelson petition, "for want of a substantial federal question."

For about four decades that was the final word on the issue, at least legally. Now a generational shift in public acceptance has given same-sex marriage a powerful new voice. Judges around the country -- in state and federal courts -- have spoken with a near unanimity over the past year that millions of gays and lesbians have been denied an equal protection right to tie the knot, or to have their legal unions recognized by their home states.

The public debate is back at the nation's highest court, with the justices being asked to offer a fresh, definitive, and binding ruling. The court next week will return from its summer recess and meet privately to consider appeals originating from same-sex couples in five states: Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana.

If one or more of those petitions are accepted now for review, oral arguments would likely be held early next year, with a monumental opinion expected by late June 2015.

"The question of whether same-sex marriage bans are constitutional is a historic issue, under the Constitution and for the Roberts Court," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a respected Washington attorney. "It's hard to imagine a situation where judges are going to have more power to define the social and family relationships of the country."

A patchwork of state laws on the issue

Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 U.S states plus the District of Columbia: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington state. Massachusetts became the first to grant the right in 2004.

A Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage would essentially end a patchwork of state laws -- some that allow it, some that do not, and a few that allow protections short of marriage, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

The highest court by its nature is a deliberative body, preferring almost by instinct to take things slowly, allowing issues to percolate in the lower courts and in the political discourse.

Did Obama drop Supreme Court hint? White House says no

Not so here. What has been most remarkable about the issue is how rapidly the core constitutional questions have reached the justices, presenting an inevitability among those on both sides of the debate they will get involved.

The court hurried to schedule the appeals from the five states for its closed-door conference, even before all the legal briefs had been filed. That suggests the justices are ready to add the controversies to the docket, and now.

Some conservative activists say this bench should slow down, and ultimately stay out.

"When the court on such an issue -- where there are very strong opinions on both sides, and a huge issue of social change in our country -- steps in and makes it into a constitutional issue, it makes the justices look significantly more political in the eyes of the American people," said Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network. "It would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the court ... by imposing one type of solution for the entire nation, instead of leaving it in the hands of the states to decide how they want to address this issue."

Many supporters of "traditional" marriage privately say preserving an inflexible one-man/one-woman definition of wedlock nationwide would not be realistic moving forward, and that a divided bloc of states upholding the status quo may be the best possible scenario. But all that hinges on what the Supreme Court does and does not do.

A federal appeals court in August took just nine days after intensive oral arguments to issue its sweeping conclusion that voter-approved same-sex marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin were unacceptably discriminatory. And state leaders then took just five days to formally ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently hinted a "why wait" attitude may predominate.

"I think the court will not do what they did in the old days when they continually ducked the issue of miscegenation," she told the Associated Press in July, referring to state bans on interracial marriage, which was not struck down by the high court until 1967. "If a case is properly before the court, they will take it."


In their private conference on Monday-- just the nine justices, no one else attends-- the court will discuss among itself whether to grant a "petition for a writ of certiorari," essentially if any of the marriage cases deserve full scrutiny. It takes just four justices to put such petitions on the docket, but five to ultimately prevail on the merits.

"The stakes are incredibly high for Americans and for the legacy of the Roberts court," said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. Moderate-conservative "Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been a crucial vote on the question gay rights [in the past], is again expected be a crucial vote in this case."

The high court's big cases this year

More than 80 pending marriage equality lawsuits in 31 states

State and federal judges in the past year have ruled 39 times in favor of the expanded marriage right, while two have upheld existing laws. All this follows what the Supreme Court in 2013 said peripherally on the issue.

Fifteen months ago, the justices cleared the way for same-sex marriages in California to resume after they ruled private parties did not have "standing" to defend a voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbian couples from state-sanctioned wedlock.

More importantly, the high court also rejected parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in its 5-4 "Windsor" decision, citing equal protection guarantees to conclude same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits, such as tax breaks.

That federal question now morphs into the higher-stakes state jurisdiction, where marriage laws have traditionally been controlled, and where the equal protection issues will ultimately be resolved.

By CNN's count, various individuals and gay rights groups have launched more than 80 pending marriage equality lawsuits in all 31 states with current bans. A Supreme Court review would put all that litigation on hold.

However, the nine justices have complete discretion to stand on the sidelines for now -- and wait for a majority of these state battles to play out, or for a federal appeals court to uphold a ban.

"In theory, the justices can avoid deciding any question, particularly when there is no real division and there isn't about same-sex marriage -- yet," said Goldstein. "But this is just too important. They can't stay out, it would be ridiculous for the nation's highest court not to decide this issue now."

Strike down same-sex marriage bans or allow them to stand

The Supreme Court could historically alter how marriage is treated under a legal framework, potentially striking down every current same-sex marriage ban. Or the justices could leave the current patchwork of state laws in place, allowing legislatures, voters, or lower courts to sort it all out, for now.

A CNN/ORC International Poll released more than a year ago found an apparent cultural shift: 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, up from 40% in 2007.

Some gay rights activists have expressed concern a national legal strategy aimed at the Supreme Court could prove too risky, and end up slowing momentum toward widespread public acceptance of their relationships. A state-by-state approach pursued by some groups had proven gradually successful, and some supporters of marriage equality fear trying to move too far too fast could create legal setbacks, especially when polls continue to show a sizable number of Americans opposed to the idea.

Marriage equality advocates worry about a broader social backlash on other LGBT issues. But those on all sides of this issue recognize it now sits irretrievably in the hands of the highest court, and that is where the next act of this drama is being played.

Nothing about this political and legal debate in the past decade has been easy, predictive or settled. Like the layered dynamic of marriage itself, putting meaning and force into society's expectations remains an ongoing process, a dialogue that continues to evolve in new ways.

Poll: Confidence in Supreme Court at record low

Differing opinions on the Baker case

A final word about the Baker case, the often forgotten pioneer in the fight for LGBT legal rights. The quarter-century after World War II saw many gay and lesbian Americans slowly acknowledging their identity, and facing discrimination and animus as a result.

The 1969 Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village were a social watershed, with many in the LGBT community citing the riots as helping spark the modern fight for equality.

Activists organized and united -- often uneasily -- forging a strategy to have their voices heard in court. They saw how the Supreme Court in particular was moving toward affirming long-denied rights to those based on skin color and gender.

A year after Stonewall, Richard Baker and James McConnell, students at the University of Minnesota, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis, but were refused. The state's highest court eventually turned aside their appeal, concluding marriage as between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation and rearing of children was "as old as the book of Genesis."

The subsequent refusal by the nation's highest court to intervene tamped down any further legal or political discussion on the issue for decades. The all-male, all-married bench at the time issued a summary decision without full briefing or oral arguments.

Because of the terseness of that decision, state and federal courts today offer differing opinions on whether Baker is "irrelevant," and has any force today when deciding the constitutional equal protection questions.

Minnesota in August 2013 legalized same-sex marriage, the 13th state to do so.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 02, 2014, 10:38:05 pm
Just reading b/w the lines - looks like the USSC may have tipped their hand...

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-takes-no-immediate-action-gay-marriage-134524235.html
Supreme Court takes no immediate action on gay marriage cases
10/2/14

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday took no action over whether it plans to take up the question of whether states can ban gay marriage.

The seven different cases pending before the court were not mentioned in a list of new cases the court agreed to hear on Thursday ahead of its new term, which starts on Monday.

The move does not necessarily mean the court will decline to hear the cases during the new term. It often takes more time to consider particularly noteworthy or complicated cases before deciding whether to take them up.

The court has seven cases pending before it concerning bans in five states: Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Indiana. If the court agrees to take one or more of the cases, it would have the chance to rule when, if ever, gay men and women in the 31 states that now bar them from marrying could get marriage licenses.

Gay marriage advocates have won a stream of court victories since the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June 2013 in a case called U.S. v. Windsor to strike down a key part of a federal law that had restricted the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples for the purpose of federal government benefits.

The momentum within America's courts in favor of gay marriage reflects a sea-change in public opinion in the past decade, with polls showing a steady increase in support. Politicians, mostly Democrats but also some notable Republicans, have increasingly voiced their support for ending bans.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 03, 2014, 10:55:33 pm
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/missouri-must-recognize-same-sex-marriages-granted-elsewhere#2fi2oy5
Missouri Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Granted Elsewhere, State Court Rules

The case was brought by 10 same-sex couples who are represented by the ACLU.

10/3/14

WASHINGTON — Missouri must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples that were granted elsewhere, state Judge Dale Youngs ruled on Friday.

“[T]o the extent these laws prohibit plaintiffs’ legally contracted marriages from other states from being recognized here, they are wholly irrational, do not rest upon any reasonable basis, and are purely arbitrary,” Youngs wrote.

The ruling followed a hearing in September on the case, which was brought by 10 same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Missouri has finally recognized our couples’ marriages as being no different from any other marriage,” Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement.

“As of right now, the injunction and order requiring the state to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdiction is in effect,” Rothert told BuzzFeed News.

As for whether state officials will appeal, he said that he would not be surprised if they do appeal, but added, “We hope that they will accept this disposition.”

Asked for comment, a spokesperson from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office said only that the office is reviewing the ruling.

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-10/3/16/enhanced/webdr10/enhanced-20431-1412367732-11.png)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on October 06, 2014, 10:03:03 am
U.S. Supreme Court declines to intervene in gay marriage cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously banned.

By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that struck down bans in those states.

Other states under the jurisdiction of appeals courts that struck down the bans will also be affected, meaning the number of states with gay marriage is likely to quickly jump from 19 to 30.

The other states would be North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina, Wyoming, Kansas and Colorado.
 

The high court's decision not to hear the cases was unexpected because most legal experts believed it would want to weigh in on a question of national importance that focuses on whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law means gay marriage bans were unlawful.

The issue could still return to the court, but the message sent by the court in declining to hear the matter would be a boost to gay marriage advocates involved in similar litigation in states that still have bans on the books.

Just over a year ago, the justices ruled 5-4 in June 2013 to strike down a key part of a federal law that had restricted the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples for the purpose of federal government benefits.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102058024


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 07, 2014, 06:25:53 pm
When it rains, it pours...

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-bans-idaho-nevada-struck-down-201752893.html
Appeals court upholds Idaho, Nevada gay marriage
10/7/14

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A federal appeals court declared gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada on Tuesday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage in 30 other states.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down the two states' bans on gay marriage, ruling they violated equal protection rights.

"This is a super sweet victory," said Sue Latta, who along with Traci Ehlers sued Idaho last year to compel the state to recognize their 2008 marriage in California. Three other couples also joined the lawsuit to invalidate Idaho's same-sex marriage ban.

"Taxes are easier, real estate is easier, parenting is easier, end of life planning is easier," Latta said.

Logan Seven, 54, a limousine driver for Chapelle de l'amour wedding chapel in downtown Las Vegas, said he always wanted to get married on a beach, barefoot and in a white tuxedo.

"Trying to find the right man is the hard part," he said Tuesday after his boss told him about the gay marriage ruling.

The Chicago native said he was surprised when he moved to Las Vegas and learned that the town that touts itself as a marriage capital didn't allow gay marriages. "It's a no-brainer," Seven said. "Love is love."

Exactly when same-sex weddings would happen in Idaho and Nevada was unclear.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's spokesman Todd Dvorak said his office believes a previous 9th Circuit stay on marriages pending a U.S. Supreme Court appeal remains in place.

"We are reviewing the decision by the court and assessing all of Idaho's legal options," Wasden said in a statement.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that laws that treat people differently based on sexual orientation are unconstitutional unless there is a compelling government interest. He wrote that neither Idaho nor Nevada offered any legitimate reasons to discriminate against gay couples.

"Idaho and Nevada's marriage laws, by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated elsewhere, impose profound legal, financial, social and psychic harms on numerous citizens of those states," Reinhardt wrote.

He rejected the argument that same-sex marriages will devalue traditional marriage, leading to more out-of-wedlock births.

"This proposition reflects a crass and callous view of parental love and the parental bond that is not worthy of response," Reinhardt wrote. "We reject it out of hand."

Technically, the court upheld a trial judge's ruling striking down Idaho's ban and reversed a lower court ruling upholding Nevada's ban.

Reinhardt ordered a "prompt issuance" of a lower court order to let same-sex couples wed In Nevada.

"We are absolutely delighted that wedding bells will finally be ringing for same-sex couples in Nevada," said Tara Borelli, the lawyer who argued the Nevada case for Lambda Legal.

Monte Neil Stewart, the Idaho-based attorney who argued the case for Nevada on behalf of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, declined to say whether he'll challenge the order for the prompt start to same-sex marriages.

Reinhardt didn't say when marriages should start in Idaho.

State and federal court judges have been striking down bans at a rapid rate since a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year.

On Monday, the nation's top court unexpectedly rejected appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans. The decision cleared the way for a dramatic expansion of gay marriage in the United States and might have signaled that it's only a matter of time before same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states.

The appeals court panel did not rule on a similar case in Hawaii, which legalized gay marriage in December. Hawaii's governor had asked the court to toss out a lawsuit challenging the state's ban and an appeal to the 9th Circuit filed before Hawaii lawmakers legalized same-sex marriage.

All three judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. President Bill Clinton appointed Judges Marsha Berzon and Ronald Gould. President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

The court also has jurisdiction in three other states that still have marriage bans in place: Alaska, Arizona and Montana. Lawsuits challenging bans in those states are still pending in lower courts and have not reached the 9th Circuit.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 08, 2014, 05:26:12 pm
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-puts-idaho-gay-marriages-on-hold-20141008-story.html
Supreme Court puts gay marriages on hold in Idaho but not Nevada
10/8/14

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued an order Wednesday to temporarily halt gay marriages in Idaho, a day after a federal appeals court declared same-sex weddings legal there.

Initially, Kennedy’s order also put a stay on same-sex marriages in Nevada, which was covered by the same appeals court decision. But Nevada officials had not sought any further delay in the marriages, and within hours, the high court revised the order to allow gay marriages in Nevada to proceed.

Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter filed an emergency request with Kennedy and the high court early Wednesday while the state seeks to appeal the U.S. 9th Circuit Court ruling that allowed gay marriage there. Otter called the 9th Circuit's decision "an enormous federal intrusion on state power to define marriage," and his lawyers insisted there was a "strong likelihood" the Supreme Court would disagree with the reasoning in the 9th Circuit's opinion.

Shortly afterward, Kennedy, who handles emergency appeals from the West Coast, issued a brief order putting the appeals court decision on hold. He said lawyers for the plaintiffs in Idaho should file a response to the state's appeal.

After the response is filed, Kennedy is likely then to refer the matter to the full court for a vote.

The order may be nothing more than a legal courtesy to Idaho officials. Nevada officials have refused to defend its gay-marriage ban, but in Las Vegas, Clark County Clerk Diane Alba told the Associated Press that it's clear she can't issue licenses for gay weddings for now.

On Monday, the Supreme Court turned away similar appeals from five states whose bans on same-sex marriage were struck down as unconstitutional by federal appeals courts. The 9th Circuit's ruling Tuesday followed the same pattern as those other appeals court decisions, although Judge Stephen Reinhardt went a bit further to say the courts should declare that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 08, 2014, 11:31:50 pm
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/same-sex-marriage-bans-drop-flies
 Same-sex marriage bans drop like flies
10/08/14 07:02 PM—Updated 10/08/14 08:08 PM

Two days after the U.S. Supreme Court ducked the chance to potentially legalize marriage equality once and for all, the nation seems to be doing it anyway.

As evening fell Wednesday in Kansas, a judge ordered the state’s most populous county to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Kansas belongs to the same federal appeals court circuit, the 10th, as Utah and Oklahoma, two states with marriage equality cases that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear on Monday.

By declining to review those cases, as well as similar suits out of Indiana, Virginia and Wisconsin, the justices gave the last word to federal appeals courts covering those states – the 4th, the 7th, and the 10th circuits – all of which found same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional. Essentially, the Supreme Court’s inaction on the matter doomed same-sex marriage bans throughout those three circuits, clearing the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry in 11 more states.

“Although no federal court has been asked directly to address the provisions of state statutory or constitutional provisions, our district court clerks and judges are entitled to be free of any ambiguity in the administration of justice and the issuance of marriage licenses,” said Chief District Judge Kevin Moriarty of Johnson County, Kansas, in his order. The Kansas Supreme Court has yet to give statewide guidance about issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the Associated Press reported.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers directed county clerks on Tuesday to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in that state, also part of the 10th Circuit. Over in South Carolina, which is bound to the 4th Circuit, the Charleston County Probate Court announced on Wednesday that it would begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples as well. Later in the day, the state’s Republican attorney general asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to block same-sex nuptials from going forward, but legal experts anticipate that effort will ultimately fail. And finally, in another 4th Circuit state – North Carolina – a federal judge on Wednesday lifted his hold on legal proceedings in two challenges to the state’s same-sex marriage ban, signaling his intention to strike it down.

Marriage equality also took hold Wednesday in Nevada, following a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that found same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional. That ruling also applied to Idaho, but Justice Anthony Kennedy granted an emergency request Wednesday from state officials to temporarily block same-sex nuptials from going forward.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 12, 2014, 11:26:28 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-alaskas-marriage-ban-230810101.html
Federal judge strikes down Alaska gay marriage ban
10/12/14

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A federal judge on Sunday struck down Alaska's first-in-the-nation ban on gay marriages, the latest court decision in a busy week for the issue.

The state of Alaska will begin accepting those applications first thing Monday morning, Phillip Mitchell, with the state Department of Vital Statistics, told The Associated Press in an email. Alaska has a three-day waiting period between between applications and marriage ceremonies.

The late Sunday afternoon decision caught many people off guard. No rallies were immediately planned, but some plaintiffs celebrated over drinks at an Anchorage bar.

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 17, 2014, 01:08:51 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-arizonas-ban-gay-marriage-151516159.html
Gay marriage becomes legal in Arizona
10/17/14

PHOENIX (AP) — Gay marriage has become legal in Arizona after the state's conservative attorney general said Friday that he wouldn't challenge a federal court decision that cleared the way for same-sex unions in the state.

The announcement prompted gay couples in Phoenix to immediately begin lining up at the downtown courthouse to apply for marriage licenses. There is no waiting period in Arizona that would delay weddings.

The Arizona ruling bookends two weeks of nonstop court decisions across the nation, with judges striking down gay marriage bans and conservative state officials pushing back in a struggle that has increasingly gone in favor of gay marriage supporters.

Since Oct. 6 — when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand rulings from three appeals courts that struck down bans on gay and lesbian marriages — same-sex couples have begun to wed in several new states.

In the West, for example, couples already have tied the knot in Alaska, Idaho and Nevada, making Montana the lone state under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court where same-sex couples have not legally wed.

The federal government Friday announced that it will recognize same-sex marriages in seven new states and extend federal benefits to those couples, which brings the total number of states where gay and lesbian unions have federal recognition to 26, plus the District of Columbia.

Based on the flurry of recent court decisions, including Arizona's ruling Friday, more than 30 states now extend marriage rights to gay couples, and cases are pending in several others.

Arizona's conservative governor, Jan Brewer, who has clashed with President Barack Obama over immigration and other issues, said in a statement that federal courts have thwarted the will of voters and eroded the state's power to regulate laws.

"Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas," Brewer said. "It is not the role of the judiciary to determine that same-sex marriages should be allowed."

The decision from U.S. District Judge John Sedwick bars Arizona officials from enforcing a 1996 state law and a 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage.

Sedwick, who was nominated to the federal bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, ordered the state to "permanently cease" its ban on gay marriage.

Jennifer Pizer, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said she was thrilled with the ruling.

"Some of our couples have been waiting decades. Their happy day has come, and we hope that Arizona embraces this decision and allows same sex couples to enjoy their constitutional rights here in Arizona," said Pizer, an attorney for the Lambda Legal law firm.

Lawyers who pushed both lawsuits argued the state law violated equal-protection and due-process rights and wrongfully denied their clients the benefits of marriage, such as spousal pension benefits, spousal survivorship rights and the ability to make medical decisions for each other.

Attorneys representing the state urged Sedwick to uphold the state's definition of a marriage as a union between a man and woman. They argued the ban furthers the state's interest in connecting a child to his or her biological mother and father and that voters and lawmakers enacted the ban to protect their right to define marriage for their community.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 17, 2014, 05:07:07 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/u-recognize-gay-marriages-performed-seven-more-states-144008126.html
Courts knock down gay marriage bans in Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming
10/17/14

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Barriers to gay marriage fell on Friday in Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming following a series of federal court actions, in the latest in a series of legal victories for supporters of same-sex matrimony in America.

In Arizona, U.S. District Judge John Sedwick wrote in a ruling made public on Friday that the state's restrictions on gay marriage were "unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that they deny same-sex couples the equal protection of the law."

Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-minute request from Alaska seeking to block a ruling by a federal judge that struck down that state's ban, and a U.S. district judge overturned a gay marriage ban in Wyoming.

But a state holiday in Alaska meant gay couples would not be able to apply for marriage licenses there until next week, nor were marriages expected to immediately proceed in Wyoming because the judge who struck down a state ban there also put his ruling on temporary hold to give the state time to appeal.

The federal court actions would bring to 32 the number of states that allow gay marriage, if the Wyoming ban is not put on a more permanent hold by a higher court by Oct. 23. Arizona's attorney general said he would not appeal because he had no chance of success.

In Phoenix, partners Kevin Patterson and David Larance rushed to a county clerk's office after the decision and were swiftly married in a ceremony just outside the building.

“I'm just overjoyed, it's been a long time coming,” said Patterson, who was a plaintiff in the Arizona case.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court surprised observers by leaving intact lower court rulings that struck down gay marriage in five states. A day later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Arizona, found gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional.

Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, lashed out at the federal court system over recent gay marriage rulings in a statement that called them disappointing and troubling.

“It is not only disappointing, but also deeply troubling, that unelected federal judges can dictate the laws of individual states, create rights based on their personal policy preferences and supplant the will of the people in an area traditionally left to the states for more than 200 years," she said in a statement.

(Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley in Washington and Steve Quinn in Juneau, Alaska, Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Eric Beech)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Boldhunter on October 18, 2014, 03:00:32 am
So obvious - yet many will fall for the "more forgiving" act - casting their alms before men. I'm sorry - but I just have to add that I am disgusted by this level of deception.

Matthew 6:1-4 KJV
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.    Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.    But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:    That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-rights-activist-fundraising-help-anti-gay-bakery-owners-pay-their-us150000-fine181014
Matt Stolhandske, a self-described evangelical Christian and board member of Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, on Friday wrote in a column published on the Washington Post website explaining why he is raising money in hopes of covering the fine.

He wrote, 'The Kleins say the $150,000 fee will bankrupt her family. I'm raising money to help offset that cost. I'll send whatever we raise along to the Klein family with a message of love and peace. I don't want them to suffer. But I am also pleading with them and other Christians to stop using the name of Jesus to explain to the LGBT community why we don't deserve access to the civil rights afforded to heterosexuals through the legal institution of marriage.'

Citing his Christian faith, Aaron Klein, said at the time, 'I didn’t want to be a part of her marriage, which I think is wrong.'

They assert that they were expressing their religious freedom when they turned down the couple's order.

- See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-rights-activist-fundraising-help-anti-gay-bakery-owners-pay-their-us150000-fine181014#sthash.xNZUul3S.dpufemonic activity of confusion abounding:





Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 20, 2014, 02:41:50 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/wyoming-attorney-general-says-gay-marriages-begin-tuesday-185049506.html
Wyoming attorney general says gay marriages can begin on Tuesday
10/20/14

(Reuters) - Gay marriages can begin in Wyoming on Tuesday after the state files a formal notice that it will not appeal a judge's order overturning a ban on same-sex matrimony, the state's attorney general said on Monday.

"After reviewing the law and the judge's decision that binding precedent requires recognition of same-sex marriage, I have concluded that further legal process will result in delay but not a different result," Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael said in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl struck down Wyoming's gay marriage ban last week, finding that it violated the U.S. Constitution, but stayed his ruling until Thursday, or sooner if the state indicated that it would not file an appeal.

Michael said that the nuptials can begin immediately after the state files a formal notice with the court stating that it would not seek that appeal.

"The Laramie County Clerk will be required to provide marriage licenses to otherwise qualified individuals without regard to whether the applicants are a same-sex couple," he said.

"Although County Clerks in other Wyoming counties are not parties to the current litigation, the Attorney General’s office anticipates that marriage licenses will also be available to same-sex couples in these counties."

Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, a Republican, has said that while the decision went against his personal beliefs, the state would not take up the appeal as such an effort would likely not succeed.

The U.S. Supreme Court surprised observers this month by leaving intact lower court rulings that struck down gay marriage in five states.

A day later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Arizona, found gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 25, 2014, 06:23:47 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/us-recognize-gay-marriage-another-six-states-191336557.html
US to recognize gay marriage in another six states
10/25/14

Washington (AFP) - The US government announced Saturday it would recognize same sex marriages in six more states, following an earlier Supreme Court decision not to take up the debate.

The latest decision covers Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and comes on the heels of a similar decision last week that extended federal recognition to seven states.

Holder's announcement "brings the total number of states where same sex couples are recognized by the federal government to 32, plus the District of Columbia," the Justice Department said.

"With each new state where same sex marriages are legally recognized, our nation moves closer to achieving of full equality for all Americans," Holder said.

"We are acting as quickly as possible with agencies throughout the government to ensure that same sex married couples in these states receive the fullest array of benefits allowable under federal law."

The statement said Holder had also determined the government would legally recognize same sex marriages in two states, Indiana and Wisconsin, conducted in June. Court battles over gay marriage bans in those states are ongoing.

Earlier this month, the US Supreme Court snubbed appeals from several states where state-level bans on gay marriage had been deemed unconstitutional.

Marriages in those states had been on hold pending the court's decision on whether to hear the cases. The ruling means that same sex couples in the five states can now have their unions recognized.

The number of states legalizing gay unions is expected to increase.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 28, 2014, 11:52:31 pm
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/27/gay-marriage-legal-us-states
10/27/14
Gay marriage is legal in 32 US states – but what about the other 18?
Eighteen states in the union have not yet recognised gay marriage – but for several, it’s just a matter of time before that changes


After the unexpected decision by the US supreme court not to hear a series of appeals, same-sex marriage is now legal in 32 US states.

So what about the 18 remaining states? In those covered by the jurisdictions of appeal courts that have ruled in favor of gay marriage, it’s just a matter of time before the bans fall. All that’s required is a ruling by a court at state level. South Carolina, Montana and Kansas are in this category, covered by the fourth, ninth, and 10th circuits.

In other states, even if a district judge rules that a ban is unconstitutional, the case would still need to run up the appeals process.

Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage hope the supreme court will weigh in and clear things up. Experts agree that if an appeals court were to rule in favor of a gay marriage ban, setting up a conflict between jurisdictions, pressure would increase on the justices to take up a case. Legal experts have their bets on the conservative fifth and sixth circuit courts. Decisions on same-sex marriage cases are due in the coming months.

Here’s the full picture:

Alabama Three cases challenging Alabama’s same-sex marriage ban are pending in federal court. State attorney general Luther Strange has fled a request for summary judgement in one of the cases: Searcy v Bentley. Alabama is in the conservative 11th circuit, which has a same-sex marriage case pending. A ruling on that case would impact Alabama and the other two states in the circuit that still have bans: Florida and Georgia.

Arkansas A county circuit judge in May ruled that the Arkansas ban is unconstitutional, prompting hundreds of couples to marry before the state supreme court stayed the decision. A hearing has been scheduled for 20 November for that case. That same day, a federal judge will hear a separate lawsuit that challenges the state’s ban. Whichever way the judge rules, the case could easily end up in the eighth circuit court of appeals.

Florida Following the supreme court’s 6 October decision not to take up any of the seven same-sex marriage petitions it was considering, Florida attorney general Pam Bondi asked the state supreme court to deliver a final ruling on same-sex marriage, but a state appeals court has refused to let the case go directly to that court. District and circuit judges have ruled the state’s ban unconstitutional, but all decisions have been stayed.

Georgia A lawsuit challenging Georgia’s ban on same-sex marriage was filed in April and a decision is not expected any time soon. Supporters of marriage equality rallied last week to urge state attorney general Sam Olens to stop defending the ban. Earlier last week, Olens said that marriage rights should not be extended to same-sex couples.

Kansas The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked a federal court to overturn the state’s ban and a federal judge has scheduled a hearing in Kansas . Part of the ACLU’s argument relies on the supreme court’s October decision that saw same-sex marriage bans overturned in Utah and Oklahoma, which, like Kansas, are under the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit court of appeals. Kansas is the only 10th circuit state where same-sex marriage is not yet legal, though several marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples earlier this month following the supreme court’s announcement. The motion to allow those marriages has since been stayed.

Kentucky A federal district court struck down Kentucky’s same-sex marriage ban in July, but the ruling was stayed pending the results of cases that were heard by the US sixth circuit court of appeals in August. The sixth circuit’s decision was expected weeks ago and is being closely watched as it is the circuit most likely to break the streak of rulings in favor of same-sex marriage, the soonest.

Louisiana Louisiana is the only state where a federal judge has upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, though a federal judge upheld the ban in Puerto Rico last week. The plaintiffs in Louisiana have appealed to the fifth circuit court of appeals.

Michigan A federal district court invalidated the state’s ban in March, but the decision was stayed after more than 300 couples married. Michigan also falls under the jurisdiction of the sixth circuit, which should rule on the same sex marriage’s cases it is considering before the end of the year.

Mississippi Roberta Kaplan, the attorney who successfully argued against the Defense of Marriage Act before the supreme court last year, filed a federal lawsuit challenging Mississippi’s ban.

Missouri Missouri now recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states after a judge struck down a part of the state’s ban earlier this month. A federal lawsuit challenging the state’s ban is pending.

Montana A day after the supreme court dropped seven same-sex marriage petitions, the ninth circuit court ruled that bans in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional, making such nuptials legal in the state and setting a precedent for the rest of the circuit. Montana is now the only state in the ninth circuit that still has a same-sex marriage ban. A district judge scheduled a hearing for 20 November for a challenge to the ban.

Nebraska In 2005, a judge ruled that Nebraska’s ban was unconstitutional, though the eighth circuit court of appeals quickly reversed that decision. This case stands unless a challenge makes its way back to the eighth circuit. There is no federal challenge to the state’s ban, though influential marriage equality groups have filed briefs supporting a state challenge to the ban.

North Dakota Seven same-sex couples have challenged North Dakota’s ban. The lawsuit is pending. Like Nebraska, North Dakota is under the jurisdiction of the eighth circuit court of appeals, which does not currently have any state same-sex marriage cases pending.

Ohio A federal judge struck down the state’s ban in April, which was stayed. Like other state’s under the jurisdiction of the sixth circuit, the stay is pending the appeals court’s ruling.

South Carolina Attorneys have asked a federal judge to overturn South Carolina’s ban on same-sex marriage in a summary judgment. Last week, state attorney general Alan Wilson asked a federal judge to dismiss the suit. South Carolina is under the jurisdiction of the fourth circuit court of appeals, which struck down the ban. The supreme court upheld that decision in its early October decision, giving officials little room to defend the ban.

South Dakota A federal judge heard arguments about South Dakota’s ban recently. This is another eighth circuit state, meaning that either way the judge rules, a once-and-for-all decision overturning the ban could be a long time coming.

Tennessee A federal judge ruled that same-sex marriages in other states should be recognized in Tennessee, but the sixth circuit court of appeals stayed the decision. Tennessee, too, is waiting on the circuit court’s ruling.

Texas A federal judge struck down the state’s ban in February and has appealed the case to the conservative fifth circuit court of appeals. This is the circuit court that could also break the streak of rulings in favor of marriage equality, which would incline the supreme court to pick up a same-sex marriage case. The fifth circuit’s decision is not expected as soon as the sixth’s, which, again, could arrive any day now.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 04, 2014, 05:13:09 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-kansas-let-gay-couples-marry-211702155.html
Judge orders Kansas to let gay couples marry
11/4/14

KANSAS CITY, Kan. (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Kansas to allow same-sex couples to marry pending the outcome of a lawsuit challenging the state's ban, but he delayed enforcement of his order until next week to give the state time to appeal.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing its constitutional ban as of 5 p.m. next Tuesday, pending the outcome of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging it.

The state is expected to appeal Crabtree's order — Assistant Attorney General Steve Fabert told the judge in court last week that the state would appeal if such an order were issued.

The ACLU sued to overturn Kansas' ban after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from five states seeking to save their gay marriage bans. Among them were Oklahoma and Utah, which like Kansas fall under the jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ACLU filed its lawsuit on behalf of two lesbian couples, one in Douglas County and one in Sedgwick County, who had been denied marriage licenses. The defendants include the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, which provides license forms and maintains copies of marriage certificates.

ACLU lawyers contend that the group's lawsuit is likely to prevail and that denying the couples the right to marry, even for a short time, would do them irreparable harm.

Crabtree wrote that Kansas' ban is infringing on the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and he seemed reluctant to delay their right to marry, even by a week. He said the 10th Circuit had already settled the substance of the constitutional challenge, but conceded that the appeals court may view the case differently than he views it.

"On balance, the court concludes that a short-term stay is the safer and wiser course," he wrote in granting the one-week delay.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 05, 2014, 04:56:20 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-overturns-missouri-ban-gay-marriage-214811979.html
Judge overturns Missouri ban on gay marriage
11/5/14

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A state judge overturned Missouri's constitutional ban on gay marriage Wednesday in a ruling that immediately set off a rush among some same-sex couples to apply for marriage licenses.

A spokeswoman for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster did not immediately respond to questions about whether the ruling would be appealed. But Koster chose not to appeal a previous ruling that recently required Missouri to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Some couples weren't waiting to see whether there would be additional legal wrangling.

After hearing about Wednesday's ruling, Kelley Harris and Kelly Barnard drove immediately to St. Louis recorder of deed's office to apply for a marriage license. They called a photographer to record the event and planned to invite friends to attend an impromptu ceremony at a local park. The couple had held an unofficial wedding ceremony in 2003.

"We've already been living as a married couple — we have children, we have family — so it would be nice to have the legal backing," Harris said.

The city of St. Louis issued four marriage licenses to same-sex couples in June and then quit doing so, intentionally setting up a legal challenge to the state's 2004 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Assistant Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan argued during a September court hearing that 71 percent of Missourians had voted for the referendum and said that the U.S. Supreme Court has time and again allowed states to define marriage.

St. Louis City Counselor Winston Calvert countered that the existing law treats same-sex couples as "second-class citizens." He said an increasing number of states are allowing gay couples to wed, including most of the states surrounding Missouri.

"Obviously this is a long time coming for so many gay and lesbian couples in the state of Missouri and the city of St. Louis in particular," Calvert said Wednesday.

Jackson County Circuit Judge J. Dale Youngs' recent order requiring the state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states allowed married gay couples to be eligible to sign up for a wide range of tax, health insurance, veterans and other benefits now afforded to opposite-sex married couples. In saying he wouldn't appeal that ruling, Koster stated, "Missouri's future will be one of inclusion, not exclusion."

A federal court case in Kansas City also challenges Missouri's gay marriage ban.

The lawsuits in Missouri mirror dozens of others across the country that argue state bans on gay marriage violate the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples. The suits are based on the same arguments that led the U.S. Supreme Court last year to overturn part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied a range of tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples.

Gay marriage is legal in 32 states and the District of Columbia, and bans in other states face legal challenges.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on November 06, 2014, 04:09:56 pm
US Appeals Court Upholds Anti-Gay Marriage Laws

 A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld anti-gay marriage laws in four states, breaking ranks with other courts that have considered the issue and setting up the prospect of Supreme Court review.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard arguments on gay marriage bans or restrictions in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee on Aug. 6 split 2-1, with Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton writing the majority opinion. The ruling creates a divide among federal appeals courts, increasing the likelihood the Supreme Court will now take up the issue.

The ruling concluded that states have the right to set rules for marriage.

It followed more than 20 court victories for supporters of same-sex marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year. A federal judge in Louisiana recently upheld that state's ban, but four U.S. appeals courts ruled against state bans.

The issue appears likely to return to the Supreme Court so the nation's highest court can settle whether states can ban gay marriage or that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. Thirty-two states recently asked the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all.

The high court on Oct. 6 unexpectedly turned away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit gay and lesbian unions. The court's order effectively made gay marriage legal in 30 states. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the next day overturned same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, the fourth federal appeals court to rule against state bans.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently told a Minnesota audience that the 6th Circuit's then-pending ruling would likely influence the high court's timing, adding "some urgency" if it allowed same-sex marriage bans to stand.

Before the 9th's Oct. 7 ruling, three other appellate courts, the 10th Circuit in Denver, the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, and the 7th Circuit in Chicago, overturned statewide gay marriage bans in Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia over the summer, ruling that they were unconstitutional.

During the Aug. 6 arguments, it was apparent that Sutton would be the deciding vote, with the two other judges clearly on opposite sides of the debate.

Sutton vigorously questioned each side's attorneys, though he repeatedly expressed deep skepticism that the courts were the best place to legalize gay marriage, saying that the way to win Americans' hearts and minds is to wait until they're ready to vote for it.

"I would have thought the best way to get respect and dignity is through the democratic process," Sutton, a George W. Bush nominee, said at the time. "Nothing happens as quickly as we'd like it."

Michigan's and Kentucky's cases stem from rulings striking down each state's gay marriage bans. Ohio's two cases deal only with the state's recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, while Tennessee's is narrowly focused on the rights of three same-sex couples.

Plaintiffs include a Cincinnati man who wants his late husband listed as married on his death certificate so they can be buried next to each other in a family-only plot and a Tennessee couple who both want to be listed on their newborn daughter's birth certificate.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-appeals-court-rules-gay-marriage-bans-26743179


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 06, 2014, 06:39:50 pm
Don't be fooled by this - the swing judge(Sutton) that voted to uphold these anti-SSM bans voted to uphold Obamacare a couple of years ago. Seriously - does this make any sense? Being anti-sodomy but pro-socialized medicine?

IOW - all of this is going according to script.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 06, 2014, 07:43:43 pm
Don't be fooled by this - the swing judge(Sutton) that voted to uphold these anti-SSM bans voted to uphold Obamacare a couple of years ago. Seriously - does this make any sense? Being anti-sodomy but pro-socialized medicine?

IOW - all of this is going according to script.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sutton

Judge Sutton has been recognized as the intellectual engine behind a conservative movement of the jurisprudence of the Sixth Circuit as the author of many majority en banc opinions representing the Republican-appointed judges.[4] In June 2011, Sutton became the first Republican nominated judge to rule in favor of the health care mandate in President Barack Obama's Health Care law.[5]


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 11, 2014, 11:05:42 pm
Be ye not deceived - this is all pre-scripted and part of their Hegelian Dialectic game. The minute a (Reagan-appointed)federal judge in California struck down Prop 8 4 years ago, it was game over for the battle against sodomy marriage.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/11/gay-marriage-chaos-begins.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29
11/11/14
Gay Marriage Chaos Begins

Justice Sotomayor stopped gay marriages in Kansas before they even start thanks to a split among circuit courts. The pressure is on the Supreme Court to settle this once and for all.

The wheels of justice grind slowly – except when they don’t.

Consider the fate of same-sex marriage in Kansas over last two months.

In Kansas, as in many states, challenges to same-sex marriage bans are wending their way through the courts.  Most court-watchers expected that the Supreme Court would take up the issue, and the Kansas litigants were among them.

But on October 6, the Court decided not to do so, observing that lower court opinions were almost unanimously striking down such bans.  The cases the Court chose not to review included one from the Tenth Circuit, which includes Kansas.

Four days later, on October 10, the Kansas Supreme Court said it would consider what this all meant.  Was Kansas’s ban now unconstitutional, with the Tenth Circuit decision now left standing?  In the meantime – and here’s the catch – the Kansas Supreme Court left things as they are: no marriage licenses for gay couples, while the review takes place.

Four hours later, the ACLU, litigating the case for two lesbian couples, filed a case in federal court, and later added that the Kansas court’s stay was improper.

On November 4, the district court agreed.  The way things stood, there was really no chance that Kansas’s marriage ban would survive, and (sparing some of the legal details) there was no other compelling reason to delay issuing marriage licenses, as had already happened in many other states.  Justice delayed is justice denied, after all.

On review, the Tenth Circuit court of appeals agreed too.

But then everything changed.  On November 6, the Sixth Circuit’s long-winded decision in DeBoer v. Snyder held, for about a dozen different reasons, that state same-sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional.  Now, unlike two days earlier, there was a circuit court split on the issue, and a strong likelihood that the Supreme Court would decide it after all.

So, on November 10 – still with me? – the Kansas attorney general appealed to the Supreme Court.  Now things have changed, Kansas said.  Now you’re going to have to take up this issue.

And on November 11, the day that Kansas clerks were supposed to start certifying same-sex marriages, Justice Sonia Sotomayor – responsible for reviews of this kind coming from the Tenth Circuit – stayed the order.  Put away the champagne, friends of Dorothy – you’re still in Kansas for now.


Suppose a Kansas gay couple gets married tomorrow, makes binding financial life decisions, and then finds next week that they’re not married after all.
As is typical in such cases, Justice Sotomayor’s one-line order gives no reasons for its decision.  It is, after all, only reviewing a decline of a stay of an injunction to stop withholding licenses.  And it is only a temporary (though indefinite) order, requesting a response from the ACLU.  This is hardly the “setback for gay marriage” that some enthusiastic headline-writers have proclaimed.

It’s not even clear that the ACLU will disagree.  With the Sixth Circuit decision now the law of (part of ) the land, there is a legitimate difference of judicial opinion on this question.  Strategically, it may make sense for LGBT advocates to nip this chaos in the bud and ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue now.

Or, in keeping with its recent judicial minimalism, the Court could decide to keep the stay in place without taking up the state marriage ban question directly.  As the Kansas appeal emphasizes, procedural legal principles generally require federal courts to wait until after state courts have ruled on issues of state law.  The Court could tell the district court simply to wait.

Underlying all of this legal maneuvering is the social fact that marriages are hard to undo.  It’s happened before, of course; same-sex marriages in New York and California were retroactively de-legitimized.  But it’s not only bad optics – it’s bad policy.  Suppose a Kansas gay couple gets married tomorrow, makes binding financial life decisions, and then finds next week that they’re not married after all.  This is exactly the kind of legal chaos that stays are meant to avoid.

I think gay marriage advocates know this.  These marriages are “facts on the ground,” to borrow a phrase from the conflict in the Middle East. They can be unmade by judicial fiat, but it feels awfully cruel to do so.  There is something irrevocable-feeling about couples tying the knot on the steps of the county courthouse.

And if there is anything the blizzard of dates and lawsuits indicates, it’s that this large-scale social evolution is now moving extremely fast.  A temporary stay in Kansas would slow the process down, but a slowdown isn’t a setback, especially when the pace has been so frenetic.

On the contrary, if the Court now decides to hear this case on the merits, it might be a fast-track.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oddly - Sotomayer(an Obama appointed justice) voted to uphold Prop 8 in California last year, while Scalia(a Reagan appointed justice) voted to STRIKE IT DOWN.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 12, 2014, 06:37:51 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-lifts-hold-gay-marriage-kansas-223051614--politics.html
Supreme Court lifts hold on gay marriage in Kansas
11/12/14

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says same-sex marriages can go ahead in Kansas.

The court on Wednesday denied the state's request to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying while Kansas fights the issue in court.

A federal district judge last week blocked the state from enforcing its ban, saying it was in keeping with an earlier ruling by the federal appeals court that oversees Kansas that struck down bans in Oklahoma and Utah.

The judge's ruling was supposed to go into effect Tuesday, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor (SOHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') temporarily put it on hold while the high court reviewed the case.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have sided with the state.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 13, 2014, 03:51:54 pm
http://www.wach.com/news/story.aspx?id=1121891#.VGVCPDKvW4M
Federal judge strikes down South Carolina gay marriage ban
11/12/14


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 18, 2014, 08:25:31 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-lets-gay-marriage-ahead-south-carolina-003416940.html;_ylt=AwrBT8GH_mtUdzkACclXNyoA
Appeals court lets gay marriage go ahead in South Carolina
11/18/14

CHARLESTON S.C (Reuters) - Same-sex weddings could happen in South Carolina as soon as Thursday after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined on Tuesday to block a district court ruling that struck down South Carolina's gay marriage ban.

The move, which paves the way for South Carolina to become the 34th U.S. state to permit gay marriage unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, was cheered by gay rights advocates.

"We are ecstatic as we get ready to go pick up our license at noon on Thursday," said Colleen Condon, a plaintiff in the case, in a statement.

The South Carolina Attorney General's Office, which has defended the ban, asked U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to stay the district court's ruling.

"Today's ruling by the Fourth Circuit does not end the constitutional obligation of this Office to defend South Carolina law," the state's Republican attorney general, Alan Wilson, said in a statement.

In separate court action on South Carolina's same-sex marriage ban on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Michelle Childs ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages of couples wed outside its borders.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week rejected a stay application filed by Kansas officials similar to the one filed by South Carolina officials. Like South Carolina, Kansas was bound by a regional appeals court ruling that struck down bans in other states.

That same day, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled that South Carolina was bound by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down a similar law in Virginia.

Gergel put his ruling on hold for a week to allow the state time to appeal.

Although gay marriage advocates have had the advantage in the courts over the past year, a Cincinnati-based federal appeals court on Nov. 6 became the first to uphold gay marriage bans.

That decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backing four states' bans created a split within the courts, increasing the chances the Supreme Court will rule once and for all on whether states can ban gay marriage.

The high court has so far declined to take up cases that would lead to a definitive ruling on gay marriage, allowing gay marriage to proceed in five states when it refused to hear appeals in seven cases in October.

(Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley, Jonathan Kaminsky and Letitia Stein; Writing by David Adams; Editing by Sandra Maler and Peter Cooney)


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 19, 2014, 04:47:18 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-overturns-montanas-gay-marriage-ban-214524989.html
Judge overturns Montana's gay marriage ban
11/19/14

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A federal judge in Montana on Wednesday overturned the state's gay marriage ban.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris ruled that Montana's constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

"This Court recognizes that not everyone will celebrate this outcome," Morris wrote. "This decision overturns a Montana Constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Montana. Yet the United States Constitution exists to protect disfavored minorities from the will of the majority."

In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Idaho and Nevada's bans are unconstitutional. Montana is part of the 9th Circuit, and Morris cited the appeals court's opinion in his ruling.

The move comes after four same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in May challenging Montana's ban. The plaintiffs included Angie and Tonya Rolando.

"Calling Tonya my partner, my significant other, my girlfriend, my perpetual fiancée has never done justice to our relationship," Angie Rolando said. "Now I can look forward to the day when I can introduce Tonya as my wife.

"Love won today," she said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana. The organization said earlier that it expected the favorable ruling because of the 9th Circuit's finding.

Morris also noted Montana no longer can deprive plaintiffs and other same-sex couples of the chance to marry their loves. He said his ruling was effective immediately.

"The time has come for Montana to follow all the other states within the Ninth Circuit and recognize that laws that ban same-sex marriage violate the constitutional right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws," the judge wrote.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 25, 2014, 10:53:17 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-mississippi-gay-marriage-bans-overturned-030128511.html
Arkansas, Mississippi gay marriage bans overturned
11/25/14

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas and Mississippi became the latest two states Tuesday to have their gay marriage bans overturned by federal judges, but there are no rushes to the altar as both orders are on hold so the states can consider appeals.

Like several states, Arkansas and Mississippi had voter-approved constitutional amendments pass in 2004 that defined marriage between one man and one woman.

In Arkansas, U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker ruled in favor of two same-sex couples who had challenged the amendment. They argued the ban violated the U.S. Constitution and discriminated based on sexual orientation.

"The fact that Amendment 83 was adopted by referendum does not immunize it from federal constitutional scrutiny," Baker wrote in her ruling.

Besides the amendment, Mississippi has a 1997 law that bans same-sex marriage.

But U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves wrote in his ruling, "The Fourteenth Amendment operates to remove the blinders of inequality from our eyes. Though we cherish our traditional values, they must give way to constitutional wisdom. Mississippi's traditional beliefs about gay and lesbian citizens led it to defy that wisdom by taking away fundamental rights owed to every citizen. It is time to restore those rights.

"Today's decision may cause uneasiness and concern about the change it will bring," he wrote. "But "'(t)hings change, people change, times change, and Mississippi changes, too.' The man who said these words, Ross R. Barnett, Jr., knew firsthand their truth."

Barnett Jr. is an attorney and son of segregationist Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett, who was in office from 1960 to 1964.

The ruling was similar in Arkansas.

The state's marriage laws and the amendment violate the U.S. Constitution by "precluding same-sex couples from exercising their fundamental right to marry in Arkansas, by not recognizing valid same-sex marriages from other states, and by discriminating on the basis of gender," Baker wrote.

Baker put the ruling on hold, anticipating an appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis.

A spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said McDaniel was reviewing the ruling and would decide after the Thanksgiving holiday whether to appeal in consultation with Republican Attorney General-elect Leslie Rutledge in Arkansas.

Mississippi officials had already said they planned to appeal any ruling that overturned the law.

Judges across the country have ruled against bans similar to Arkansas' since the U.S. Supreme Court struck part of a federal anti-gay marriage law in June 2013, and gay marriage is legal in more than half of the U.S.

Jack Wagoner, a lawyer for the Arkansas couples who had told the judge last week that same-sex marriage would eventually be legal nationwide, said he was pleased with her decision.

"She's on the right side of history," Wagoner said. "It's pretty clear where history's heading on this issue."

Another lawyer, Cheryl Maples, said eyes would turn now to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which heard arguments last week in a similar but separate case.

"If the state Supreme Court strikes down on state constitutional issues, then it's gone as far as it can go," Maples said.

Justices are weighing whether to uphold a decision in May striking down the 2004 amendment and earlier state law as unconstitutional. The decision led to 541 same sex couples getting married in the week before the state Supreme Court suspended his ruling.

Justices have not indicated when they will rule in that case.

Lawyers in McDaniel's office had argued in federal court that same-sex marriage was not a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. McDaniel has said he personally supports allowing gay couples to marry but will stay in court defending the ban, which voters approved by a 3-1 margin.

One of Mississippi's plaintiff couples, Jocelyn "Joce" (JOH'-see) Pritchett and Carla Webb, live in Mississippi and married in Maine in 2013. Pritchett said Tuesday that she, Webb and their two young children were dancing around their living room after hearing about Reeves' ruling.

"If gay marriage can be legal in Mississippi, the whole country can feel hope," Pritchett said.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 03, 2014, 03:51:34 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-marriages-could-begin-florida-early-january-204925643.html
Ruling could permit Florida same-sex marriages in early January
12/3/14

MIAMI, Fla. (Reuters) - Same-sex marriages could begin in Florida in early January after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Wednesday declined to extend a stay issued by a federal judge who struck down the state's ban on gay weddings.

The ruling would permit same-sex couples to tie the knot after the stay expires at the end of the day on Jan. 5, 2015.

State officials could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to extend the stay.

"Twenty million people live in the state of Florida, so this is absolutely historic and just further evidence the tide is moving swiftly in the direction of equality nationwide," said

Charles Joughin, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a national advocacy group.

He said it was unclear whether marriages would begin on Jan. 5 or the 6, but he expected lines of same-sex couples wanting to marry to begin forming on Jan. 5.

After a series of recent court rulings there are currently 35 states where gay marriage is legal.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 08, 2014, 06:38:19 pm
http://www.local10.com/news/broward-judge-rules-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/30118554
12/8/14
Broward judge issues ruling on gay marriage ban
Florida's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, Broward judge rules


BROWARD, Fla. -
Broward Circuit Judge Dale Cohen rules Monday that Florida's ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

Cohen also ruled Monday that out-of state gay marriages should be recognized. The judge had ruled August 4th that Florida's gay marriage ban was unconstitutional and he vacated his own order in September.

Cohen is the third judge to declare the ban unconstitutional. Florida voters passed the ban in 2008.

HEARTBREAK AND LOVE

The case of Heather Brassner and Megan E. Lade prompted the Broward court's ruling Monday.

The two women were joined in a same-sex civil union July 6, 2002 in Vermont. About 12 years later, Brassner was asking Vermont to dissolve the civil union, but they require both parties to agree, and Lade was nowhere to be found.

Brassner, who has lived in South Florida for 14 years, is now in love with Jennifer Feagin. They have been in a relationship for about 4 years, and she wants to get married again.

Brassner's attorney Nancy Brodzki filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Broward. Brassner needed the court to recognize her out-of-state civil union.

Cohen's ruling said the court would recognize the Vermont civil union and added that "Florida's ban on same-sex marriage violates the guarantees of due process and equal protection under the laws."

The ruling, Cohen added, is "based solely on the law, independent of bias, personal feelings or beliefs."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 01, 2015, 05:38:53 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-allows-gay-marriages-begin-across-florida-225319224.html
Federal judge allows gay marriages to begin across Florida
1/1/15

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - A federal judge in north Florida on Thursday ordered the start of gay marriages in all parts of the state after Jan. 5, when a stay expires on his earlier ruling that found the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

In an emergency order, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of Florida's Northern District in Tallahassee addressed confusion among court clerks about the reach of his Aug. 21 ruling, and whether it applied beyond Washington County and the two men named as plaintiffs in the case.

In a sharply worded four-page order, Hinkle said it's not his order that requires statewide issuance of licenses - it's the U.S. Constitution.

"The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the clerk to issue licenses to other applicants," Hinkle wrote. "But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the clerk to issue such licenses."

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month declined to extend a stay on Hinkle's decision, allowing Florida to become the 36th state where gay marriage is legal. (Full Story)

Yet legal counsel to the clerks statewide interpreted the high court's order to apply only to Washington County.

Clerks who married gay couples elsewhere in Florida were warned they risked fines and even jail for violating the ban approved by voters in 2008.

Facing the prospect of thousands of couples seeking to tie the knot in the Washington County seat of Chipley, about 100 miles east of Tallahassee, local officials went back to court.

In an emergency motion, they asked Hinkle whether they must wed all couples who show up, or just the two men named in the suit.

The legal maneuvering was criticized by advocates of gay marriage in Florida, who warned that clerks denying licenses after Jan. 5 faced legal action.

In his New Year's Day order, Hinkle pointedly noted that "history records no shortage of instances when state officials defied federal court orders," and bluntly warned that any counties still resisting will be on the hook for court costs and attorney fees for victorious plaintiffs.

"We look forward to Jan. 6, when couples who have waited for this day can finally be married," said Equality Florida, a Tampa-based gay advocacy group.

Last summer, Hinkle struck down a 2008 amendment to the Florida Constitution that defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on January 05, 2015, 11:00:19 am
Florida same-sex marriage

Miami-Dade County, Fla., judge lifts stay for gay marriage to take place in Dade - @CarlosWPLG



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 05, 2015, 09:11:18 pm
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeb-bushs-reaction-same-sex-230443259.html
Jeb Bush's Response To Florida Allowing Gay Marriage Is Far From Radical
1/5/15

AP Jeb Bush speaking in January 2014. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) doesn't seem like he's going to tack to the far right as he moves forward with a potential presidential campaign.

In a statement released late Monday afternoon, Bush reacted to his home state allowing same-sex marriages by sympathizing with the gay couples "who are seeking greater legal protections," according to The New York Times.

"We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law," Bush said. "I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue – including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections."

In a line that appears to reiterate his opposition to same-sex marriage, Bush also urged respect for " those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty."

According to NBC News, a judge ruled Monday that Florida's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. The state will become the 36th to legalize same-sex marriages.

Although some hailed Bush's mild statement as a step forward for Republicans who do not wish to prioritize social issues in the national political debate, Florida's Democratic Party announced it was not impressed.

"Jeb Bush remains as out of touch as ever with Floridians and voters nationwide on the civil rights issue of our time," the party's chair, Allison Tant, said in a statement. "Bush championed these discriminatory policies as governor, and it's a shame that he remains determined to stand for the forces of bigotry."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 12, 2015, 04:10:29 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/south-dakota-gay-marriage_n_6458402.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
South Dakota Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
1/12/15

A judge ruled South Dakota's gay marriage ban unconstitutional on Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier wrote that the plaintiffs in the case "have a fundamental right to marry."

"South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," Schreier wrote.

The decision is stayed pending a possible appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 15, 2015, 12:23:24 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-michigan-must-recognize-300-plus-gay-marriages-162436828.html
Judge: Michigan must recognize 300-plus gay marriages
1/15/15

DETROIT (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that Michigan must recognize hundreds of same-sex marriages performed during a brief window last year.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith wrote that the unions are valid, but stayed the decision for 21 days pending any appeal by the state.

A different federal judge struck down the state's gay marriage ban on March 21. More than 300 same-sex couples in four counties got married the next day, before an appeals court suspended the decision and blocked additional marriages.

Michigan has refused to recognize those marriages, which affects health insurance and the ability of same-sex couples to jointly adopt children. Goldsmith said those who married "acquired a status that state officials may not ignore absent some compelling interest."

"In these circumstances, what the state has joined together, it may not put asunder," Goldsmith wrote.

State Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a statement that his office is reviewing the ruling, and added that "the sooner the United States Supreme Court makes a decision on this issue the better it will be for Michigan and America."

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide Friday whether it will put Michigan's same-sex marriage case on its calendar in time to be argued and decided by late June. Until now, the court has managed both to avoid settling the issue for the nation as a whole. In the meantime, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of states that allow same-sex couples to marry. Last week, Florida became the 36th state to issue licenses for same-sex unions.

The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight couples, said the ruling is "a victory for marriage equality."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 15, 2015, 12:27:13 pm
"In these circumstances, what the state has joined together, it may not put asunder," Goldsmith wrote.

Matthew 19:3  The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:4  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 16, 2015, 03:46:50 pm
It's all going according to script...

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-must-act-fast-gay-marriage-settled-june-083801891.html
Gay marriage: High court sets stage for historic ruling
1/16/15

WASHINGTON (AP) — Setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling, the Supreme Court announced Friday it will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution.

Proponents of same-sex marriage said they expect the court to settle the matter once and for all with a decision that invalidates state provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman. On the other side, advocates for traditional marriage want the court to let the political process play out, rather than have judges order states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

That number is nearly double what it was just three months ago, when the justices initially declined to hear gay marriage appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans on same-sex marriage. The effect of the court's action in October was to make final several pro-gay rights rulings in the lower courts.

Now there are just 14 states in which same-sex couples cannot wed. The court's decision to get involved is another marker of the rapid change that has redefined societal norms in the space of a generation.

The court will be weighing in on major gay rights issues for the fourth time in in 27 years. In the first of those, in 1986, the court upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law in a devastating defeat for gay rights advocates.

But the three subsequent rulings, all written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, were major victories for gay men and lesbians. In its most recent case in 2013, the court struck down part of a federal anti-gay marriage law in a decision that has paved the way for a wave of lower court rulings across the country in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

The court is extending the time it usually allots for argument from an hour to two-and-a-half hours. The justices will consider two related questions. The first is whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The appeals before the court come from gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The federal appeals court that oversees those four states upheld their same-sex marriage bans in November, reversing pro-gay rights rulings of federal judges in all four states. It was the first, and so far only, appellate court to rule against same-sex marriage since the high court's 2013 decision.

Ten other states also prohibit such unions. In Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota and Texas, judges have struck down anti-gay marriage laws, but they remain in effect pending appeals. In Missouri, same-sex couples can marry in St. Louis and Kansas City only.

Louisiana is the only other state that has seen its gay marriage ban upheld by a federal judge. There have been no rulings on lawsuits in Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska and North Dakota.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 23, 2015, 10:32:16 pm
Now they're hitting the "bible belt" states...

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban-alabama-002032316.html
1/23/15
Federal judge strikes down gay-marriage ban in Alabama

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama became the latest state to see its ban on gay marriage fall to a federal court ruling Friday, as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Callie V.S. Granade ruled in favor of two Mobile women who sued to challenge Alabama's refusal to recognize their marriage performed in California. Alabama was among just 14 U.S. states where gay and lesbian couples were still barred from legally marrying.

Judges have also struck down the ban recently in several other Southern states, including the Carolinas, Florida, and Virginia. The bans have been upheld in Kentucky and Tennessee, two of the cases that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in April.

Plaintiffs Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand said that they had been a couple for more than a decade and had a child together with the help of a sperm donor. An Alabama court refused to recognize Searcy as the child's adoptive parent, however, because state law did not recognize the couple as spouses.

"They are ecstatic. They are over-the-top happy about the ruling," said Christine Cassie Hernandez, a lawyer representing the couple.

Hernandez said the couple expected to win in court, but were surprised that the decision came down so soon.

Granade said both an Alabama statute and 2006 amendment to the Alabama Constitution banning gay marriage were in violation of the equal- protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A spokesman for Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange issued a statement expressing disappointment in the decision and saying the state will seek to put a hold on the decision.

"We expect to ask for a stay of the court's judgment pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling which will ultimately decide this case," Strange spokesman Mike Lewis said.

Granade enjoined Strange from enforcing the laws and did not put a stay on the decision as has happened in other states.

Hernandez said that means same-sex couples could begin applying for marriage licenses on Monday
. She said McKeand and Searcy plan to refile adoption papers next week asking that they both be recognized as parents of their 8-year-old son.

Alabama is the latest of numerous states where federal judges have ruled the bans unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear cases asking it to overturn gay-marriage bans that lower courts have upheld in Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan and Ohio. The appeals from gay and lesbian plaintiffs are also asking the high court to declare that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry everywhere in the United States.

In Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota and Texas, judges have struck down anti-gay marriage laws, but they remain in effect pending appeals.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 26, 2015, 05:54:18 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/patricia-todd_n_6549024.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
1/26/15
Gay Alabama Lawmaker Threatens To Expose Colleagues' Marital Infidelities

WASHINGTON -- Alabama's only openly gay legislator is putting her anti-gay colleagues on notice: If they keep espousing family values rhetoric as a reason to oppose marriage equality, she'll start making their marital infidelities public.

"I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about 'family values' when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have," wrote state Rep. Patricia Todd (D) on Facebook over the weekend, as reported by the TimesDaily in Alabama. "I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet out."

Todd's post came after a federal judge ruled Friday that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. She told The Huffington Post that she decided to issue her threat after reading some of the anti-gay rhetoric coming from certain elected officials in the state.

"If certain people come out and start espousing this rhetoric about family values, then I will say, 'Let's talk about family values, because here's what I heard.' I don't have direct knowledge, because obviously I'm not the other person involved in the affair. But one thing you would never hear about me is that I ever cheated on a partner or had an affair," said Todd.

"One thing I'm pretty consistent on is I do not like hypocrites," she added. "If you can explain your position and you hold yourself to the same standard you want to hold me to, then fine. But you cannot go out there and smear my community by condemning us and somehow making us feel less than, and expect me to be quiet."

On Sunday night, U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade issued a two-week stay on her ruling, meaning that same-sex couples will have to wait a bit longer to wed. Her order gives the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until Feb. 9 to decide whether to continue the delay. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R) said he would have preferred a stay until the spring or summer, when the Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of marriage equality nationwide.

If Granade's ruling is upheld, Alabama will be the 37th state to legalize marriage equality.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 31, 2015, 07:56:09 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-marriage-licenses-issued-gay-couples-014308179.html;_ylt=AwrBJR9Th81U1QIAWYrQtDMD
AL Judge: Marriage licenses should be issued to gay couples
1/28/15

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Gay marriage is inching closer to becoming a reality in Alabama as a federal judge has ruled that probate judges have a constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Alabama Probate Judges Association issued new advice after reviewing the judge's clarification order that was issued Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Callie Granade last week ruled the ban unconstitutional. She put her order on hold for 14 days to let the state appeal.

Monroe County Probate Judge Greg Norris says no licenses will be issued to same-sex couples as long as the order is on hold. However, same sex couples may apply for marriage licenses if the stay is lifted.

Granade's ruling, if it stands, would make Alabama the 37th state where gay marriage is permitted.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 03, 2015, 01:58:57 pm
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/federal_court_rules.html
Federal appeals court denies Alabama's bid to extend delay on same-sex marriages
2/3/15

A federal appeals court in Atlanta on Tuesday denied a request to extend a a delay on a ruling striking down Alabama's same-sex marriage ban, meaning gay couples will be able to start getting married on Feb. 9.

The Alabama Attorney General's Office immediately said it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, although the justices have rebuffed similar requests from other states.

"I am disappointed in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court's decision not to stay the federal district court's ruling," Attorney General Luther Strange said in a prepared statement. "The confusion that has been created by the District Court's ruling could linger for months until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves this issue once and for all."

U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade in Mobile ruled one week ago that Alabama Marriage Protection Act and the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment to the state constitution both violated the U.S. Constitution.

She agreed to put the ruling on hold for 14 days to give the Alabama Attorney General's Office an opportunity to make its case to the appeals court that the delay should be extended until the U.S. Supreme Court decides another gay marriage case that both sides expect to settle the issue nationwide.

But a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a two-page order denying a request to delay Granade's orders in favor of two Mobile couples who had sued. Barring further action, those orders will take effect Feb. 9. Attorneys for plaintiffs Cari Searcy and Kim McKeand expressed elation at the ruling.

"I'm very excited about it. I just got off the phone with Kim and Cari. They're thrilled," said attorney Christine Hernandez. "It's a great day for Alabama."

Added co-counsel David Kennedy: "We're very, very pleased with the 11th Circuit's ruling and very pleased that all Alabamians will be able to enjoy the same rights under the Constitution. It's going to be sooner rather than later."

Hernandez and Kennedy asked Granade to lift the stay immediately in light of the appellate ruling, but Granade denied that request later Tuesday.

The Alabama Probate Judges Association last week reversed an earlier opinion that Granade's ruling applied only to the Attorney General's Office. And several probate judges across the state were prepared even before that to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley expressed disappointment with the decision.

"The issue of same sex marriage is a complicated one that involves all levels of government," he stated. "My request to the 11th Circuit was simply to ask that the stay be held until the Supreme Court can rule once and for all this year or pending the fully briefed 11th Circuit appeal of the issue. I support the Attorney General's decision to ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the 11 Circuit's decision."

In an appearance in Mobile on Monday, Bentley reiterated his support for an indefinite delay.

"I think that the best thing that could happen is what we asked for - and the attorney general has asked for - is a total and complete stay on everything," he said.

In the first case that resulted in Granade's ruling, Searcy and McKeand sued last year after the Alabama courts had upheld a decision by Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to reject a petition for a second-parent adoption. Under Alabama law, the state considered only McKeand - the birth mother - as a bona fide parent of the boy both women had raised since birth.

In cases where there is no other biological parent, second-parent adoptions are routinely granted to heterosexual married couples. The 2005 California marriage of Searcy and McKeand did not count in Alabama, though.

The couple's case was one of four pending in Alabama's federal courts. Last week, Granade ruled in favor of a second gay couple, deciding that Alabama violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when it denied Mobile residents James Strawser and John Humphrey a marriage license.

Hernandez said that as soon as the order takes effect - whether that is Monday or sooner - she will re-file the adoption petition on behalf of Searcy.

"It's already signed and ready to go," she said. "The Is are dotted and the Ts are crossed."

While supporters cheered Granade's ruling, it sparked a fierce backlash from opponents, who noted that 81 percent of Alabama voters backed the constitutional amendment banning the practice. Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has argued that only the U.S. Supreme Court can overrule a state law and has advised probate judges to ignore Granade's ruling.

With the appellate court's ruling, Alabama will become the 37th state, plus, the District of Columbia, where gays can get married. The only way that can be reversed now is if the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Alabama's favor on the merits of the case - considered unlikely - or if the Supreme Court upholds a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversing lower court rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans in four states.

A ruling on that case is expected by the summer.

Strange made clear he will continue to fight.

"My office vigorously defended the constitutionality of Alabama's marriage laws in the Searcy and Strawser cases, and we have appealed the court's orders in those cases," he said in his statement.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 04, 2015, 03:16:31 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/gov-rick-snyder-says-michigan-recognize-300-same-194857346.html
2/4/15

Gov. Snyder: Michigan will recognize about 300 gay marriages

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan will recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages performed during a brief window when they were allowed last year, Gov. Rick Snyder announced Wednesday.

The Republican governor said he will not appeal a federal ruling last month that the state must recognize the marriages. U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith said the marriages are valid but put on hold his decision for 21 days pending any appeal by the state.

"The judge has determined that same-sex couples were legally married on that day, and we will follow the law and extend state marriage benefits to those couples," Snyder said in a statement.

Michigan's recognition of the marriages could affect the couples' health insurance coverage and their ability to jointly adopt.

A different federal judge struck down Michigan's 2004 voter-approved gay marriage ban on March 21. Same-sex couples in four counties married the next day, before an appeals court suspended the decision and blocked additional marriages.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to consider the legality of bans in Michigan and three other states.

"I appreciate that the larger question will be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court this year," Snyder said. "This is an issue that has been divisive across our country. ... I know there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and it's vitally important for an expedient resolution that will allow people in Michigan, as well as other states, to move forward together on the other challenges we face."

On Jan. 15, Goldsmith ruled that those who married "acquired a status that state officials may not ignore, absent some compelling interest."

Further, Goldsmith said the state showed no previous court decision approving an effort to impair the marital status of a couple who were lawfully married. Rather, he wrote, "there is a long history" of court decisions and laws rejecting the view that marital status "may be invalidated by a state after it was lawfully acquired under that state's law."

"In these circumstances, what the state has joined together, it may not put asunder," Goldsmith wrote.

On Tuesday, all 11 Democrats in the 38-seat Senate wrote a letter to Snyder urging him to not appeal.

"We stand united in supporting the rights of all loving couples to marry, and urge you to join us in doing the same," they said.

Snyder's decision was "a long time coming," Glenna DeJong told The Associated Press.

DeJong, 54, and Marsha Caspar, 53, of Lansing, were the first same-sex couple to marry in Michigan when they tied the knot at the Ingham County Courthouse in Mason on March 22.

Dejong said she and her spouse are now part of an exclusive club of same-sex married couples.

"But we aim to be members of an inclusive club that everyone can join. Our case was about the right to remain married. We were legally married. There are still thousands of couples across Michigan and the United States that still cannot get married," she said. "The fight certainly isn't over."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on February 09, 2015, 08:52:26 am
Gay Marriage Cleared by U.S. High Court to Start in Alabama


It comes in advance of a constitutional showdown that may mean legalization nationwide.
 
Greg Stohr
Greg Stohr

(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex weddings to start in Alabama, letting the number of gay-marriage states climb in advance of a constitutional showdown that may mean legalization nationwide.

In a 7-2 order, the justices rejected Alabama’s bid to stop a federal trial judge’s legalization order from taking effect Monday. The state now will become the 37th where gays can marry. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The rebuff brings gay marriage to a state whose chief justice, Roy Moore, has told officials not to comply.

The Alabama request was the first to reach the high court since its Jan. 16 decision to take up the issue. Previously, the justices had let gay marriage start in Idaho, Alaska and Florida.

Each new state magnifies the potential complications should the high court rule against marriage rights. A ruling potentially would nullify lower court decisions that have required states to issue licenses, creating uncertainty about the rights of people who wed in the interim.

A federal judge in Mobile struck down Alabama’s ban last month, and her ruling is set to take effect Monday. A federal appeals court in Atlanta refused to step in, prompting Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange to turn to the Supreme Court. Governor Robert J. Bentley supported Strange’s request.
‘Proper Way’

Thomas, in a dissent joined by Scalia, wrote that “the court looks the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open” in 2013.

“This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge” the court’s responsibilities.

The high court will hear arguments on gay marriage in late April and in all likelihood rule in late June. The number of gay marriage states has tripled since 2013, when a Supreme Court ruling on a federal benefits law cast doubt on state bans.

Since then, four federal appeals courts have backed marriage rights. The justices will review the sole appellate decision that said states could restrict marriage to heterosexual unions, hearing appeals from couples in four states -- Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio.

In addition to the 37 states, the District of Columbia allows gay marriage, as do parts of Missouri.

The Alabama case is Strange v. Searcy, 14A840.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-09/gay-marriage-cleared-by-u-s-supreme-court-to-start-in-alabama


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 09, 2015, 08:39:15 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gay-marriage-signals-seen-u-supreme-court-180725673.html
Pro-gay marriage signals seen in U.S. Supreme Court action
2/9/15

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's move on Monday to allow gay marriage to proceed in Alabama is the strongest signal yet that the justices are likely to rule in June that no state can restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples.

Of the nine justices, only two - conservatives Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia - dissented from the court's refusal to block gay weddings from starting in Alabama. Gay marriage is now legal in 37 states.

Thomas acknowledged in a dissenting opinion that the court’s move to allow gay marriages to go ahead "may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution" as it considers cases from four other states on whether same-sex marriage bans are permitted under the U.S. Constitution. Although only two justices publicly dissented, the court order did not reveal whether any other justices voted to grant the stay.

Oral arguments in the cases, which are expected to result in a definitive nationwide ruling on the matter, are due in April with a decision expected by the end of June.

Gay rights groups shared Thomas' view.

Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign's legal director, said the justices' action on Alabama "has telegraphed there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer."

The group also told same-sex couples in the 13 states where gay marriage is still banned to "start your wedding plans now."


Thomas' words echoed Scalia's 2013 dissent from the court's decision to invalidate a federal law that denied benefits to same-sex couples. Scalia predicted that the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in that case would give judges a green light to strike down state gay marriage bans. That's exactly what happened.

At the time of that ruling, only 12 of the 50 states permitted gay marriage. That number has now hit 37, with federal judges playing the central role in paving the way for gay marriage in 23 of the 25 states where it has become legal since then.

As Thomas noted in his dissent, the court's normal practice would have been to put the Alabama case on hold until it had decided the cases involving the same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan.

One of the factors the court considers when deciding whether to put a hold on a lower-court ruling is the "likelihood of success" for the petitioners if the case were to be appealed.

The court in recent months has denied similar stay requests from other states, most recently Florida, thus allowing gay marriage to go ahead even while litigation continues.

Alabama's case was different as it was the first application to be made after the high court's announcement in January to take the four cases and settle the matter once and for all.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 10, 2015, 01:10:59 pm
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/boehner-house-will-not-support-marriage-during-supreme-court-case
Boehner: House will not support marriage during Supreme Court case

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When the Supreme Court rules about whether to impose same-sex “marriage” on the entire nation, the House of Representatives will remain mum on the subject.

House Speaker John Boehner confirmed that the Republican-controlled body will not weigh in on either side of the constitutional issue.

“I don’t expect that we’re going to weigh in on this,” Boehner said at a press conference last Thursday. “The court will make its decision and that’s why they’re there, to be the highest court in the land.”

The House's decision effectively abandons the legal field to federal institutions that support the redefinition of marriage.

Boehner's newfound neutrality contrasts with the House's past actions. The House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group spent $2.3 million offering legal support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) when that law went before the High Court in 2013.

Boehner's remarks came nearly one month after the Obama administration, which successfully lobbied the High Court to overturn a key provision of DOMA, said it will file an amicus brief in these two cases, as well.

“The Supreme Court has announced that it will soon hear several cases raising core questions concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriages,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement on January 16. “As such, we expect to file a ‘friend of the court’ brief in these cases that will urge the Supreme Court to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans.”

That fact was not lost on homosexual activists. Gregory Angelo, executive director of the gay Republican group Log Cabin Republicans, told The Washington Blade that Boehner’s remarks were “definitely encouraging.”

Defenders of marriage had another view.

“I'm sorry to say, that I am not surprised to hear of Boehner's position,” Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, the founder and president of the Ruth institute, told LifeSiteNews. “The elites of both political parties either actively support genderless marriage, or they will accept it.” She added that both political parties have “supported earlier phases of the Sexual Revolution.”

Political leaders “have yet to take the slightest responsibility for the harms the Sexual Revolution has caused, through unwanted divorce, post-abortion stress, medical risks associated with contraception, and the heartbreak that comes from the hook-up culture, Dr. Morse told LifeSiteNews.

“The elites are not about to grow a spine to prevent the gutting of marriage, the only institution we have that attaches children to both their mother and father,” she said.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on two issues – whether the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to same-sex “marriage” and whether states that do not observe same-sex “marriage” must honor marriage licenses conferred upon homosexual couples in other states – sometime before July.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on February 13, 2015, 12:14:59 pm
Oklahoma House Passes Bills Protecting Ministers from Performing Same-Sex Weddings

In response to recent lawsuits forcing Christian business owners to service same-sex weddings, the Oklahoma house has passed a bill that will protect ministers from litigation should they refuse to perform gay weddings.

Last year, a federal judge ruled Oklahoma's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, right on the heels of lawsuits being filed against Christian-owned businesses, and pastors in the state immediately requested their protection be put into law.

Under the guidance of Republican Rep. David Brumbaugh, the bill passed Thursday 88-7 and will now be headed for the Senate. The law allows licensed ministers in the state to refuse a same-sex wedding based on "conscience or religious beliefs" without facing civil action.

According to the Associated Press, LGBT activists see the bill as "discriminatory" against gay rights.

Oklahoma's Governor Marry Fallin has supported her states ban on same-sex marriage before. After the Supreme Court refused to hear a case defending the ban, Fallin said, "Rather than allowing states to make their own policies that reflect the values and views of their residents, federal judges have inserted themselves into a state issue to pursue their own agendas."

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/oklahoma-house-passes-bills-protecting-ministers-performing-same-sex-weddings


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 13, 2015, 01:06:19 pm
Oklahoma House Passes Bills Protecting Ministers from Performing Same-Sex Weddings

In response to recent lawsuits forcing Christian business owners to service same-sex weddings, the Oklahoma house has passed a bill that will protect ministers from litigation should they refuse to perform gay weddings.

Last year, a federal judge ruled Oklahoma's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, right on the heels of lawsuits being filed against Christian-owned businesses, and pastors in the state immediately requested their protection be put into law.

Under the guidance of Republican Rep. David Brumbaugh, the bill passed Thursday 88-7 and will now be headed for the Senate. The law allows licensed ministers in the state to refuse a same-sex wedding based on "conscience or religious beliefs" without facing civil action.

According to the Associated Press, LGBT activists see the bill as "discriminatory" against gay rights.

Oklahoma's Governor Marry Fallin has supported her states ban on same-sex marriage before. After the Supreme Court refused to hear a case defending the ban, Fallin said, "Rather than allowing states to make their own policies that reflect the values and views of their residents, federal judges have inserted themselves into a state issue to pursue their own agendas."

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/oklahoma-house-passes-bills-protecting-ministers-performing-same-sex-weddings

We'll see where this goes - ultimately, these churches are 501c3, so this law may end up being moot.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 13, 2015, 07:22:03 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/alabama-counties-grant-gay-marriage-licenses-28943083
Alabama's Stand Against Gay Marriage Crumbles
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Feb 13, 2015, 7:38 PM ET
By KIM CHANDLER Associated Press

Alabama's stand against gay marriage crumbled Friday as judges in most counties sided with federal courts rather than their own chief justice, a Republican who once called homosexuality an inherent evil.

Many counties in the Bible Belt state began issuing the licenses to same-sex couples after the latest strongly worded order from U.S. District Judge Callie Granade. She said Thursday that a judge could no longer deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians, reiterating her ruling striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

"These numbers represent a seismic shift in favor of equality and justice. Resistance to happy, loving and committed same-sex couples getting married is quickly crumbling throughout the state," said Fred Sainz, a top spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, which has been lobbying to expand gay rights nationwide.

Granade's ruling enabling gays to get licenses went into effect Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. But even then, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said county judges were not bound by her decision.

"It's my duty to speak up when I see the jurisdiction of our courts being intruded by unlawful federal authority," Moore insisted in an interview with The Associated Press later Monday.

About 20 of Alabama's 67 counties allowed gays and lesbians to wed on Monday. By Friday that number had jumped to at least 47, the Human Rights Campaign said. Other counties said they would revisit the decision next week.

Granade's ruling made Alabama the 37th state where gays and lesbians can legally wed. It also continued her family legacy of bringing sweeping change to a place where many people didn't yet welcome it.

Her grandfather was Richard Rives, a federal appellate judge whose rulings helped desegregate the South despite resistance to the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

"Judge Rives, my grandfather, really is my personal hero," Granade said during her 2001 Senate confirmation hearing. She denied then that "judicial activism" describes what her grandfather did — or what she might do.

"The issues on which he more or less broke with precedent were ones which really flew in the face of the Constitution," she said. "I think a judge will always be correct if the decisions that he or she makes are consistent with the plain language of the Constitution."

While many Republican politicians in Alabama criticized her ruling last month and tried to link her to Obama administration policies, Granade was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.

Granade could have stayed her decision pending a final U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Instead, she rejected Alabama's argument that keeping gays and lesbians from marrying benefits the state's children. And after Moore urged judges this week to ignore her ruling, she reiterated that they are bound by the U.S. Constitution to treat all couples equally.

Lee County's probate judge, Bill English, said Friday that Granade's order "makes it clear" he had to open his courthouse doors.

Moore's stand against federal authority surprised no one in Alabama, where the 68-year-old jurist who twice ran for governor burnished his conservative image a decade ago with a losing fight to keep his Ten Commandments statue inside the Alabama Judicial Building.

While Moore again appeared on the losing side Friday, a longtime supporter said the 81 percent of Alabama voters who chose to ban gay marriage in 2006 would appreciate his stand.

"I think this lady judge is scaring the daylights out of these people," Orange Beach businessman Dean Young said. "The people are very thankful that Judge Moore is standing up."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 16, 2015, 05:42:39 pm
Be ye not deceived - this is all by design - part of their Hegelian Dialectic scheme to wear everyone out, and get everyone into a "compromise". Yes, this is the last straw they're pulling here.

http://www.al.com/news/montgomery/index.ssf/2015/02/chief_justice_roy_moores_defia.html
Chief Justice Roy Moore's defiance to federal government 'places Alabama a step backwards,' says Montgomery probate judge
2/16/15

Montgomery County Probate Judge Steven Reed says he didn't feel any pressure to listen to Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Moore's order to all probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples "was a desperate attempt to defy the federal government," Reed said in an interview with Jonathan Karl on Sunday's 'This Week' on ABC.

Reed was the first probate judge in the state of Alabama to publicly say he would issue marriage licenses to gay couples when a federal judge struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, making it legal on Feb. 9. 

"I think that is what places Alabama a step backwards in some peoples' eyes when they see things like this happen - the defiance and the resistance," he said of Moore's actions, "and I think we are on the front side of this and we are on the right side of history when this is concerned."

Reed said he had no hesitation in granting licenses to gay couples. He had made his decision before Moore made his last minute attempt late Feb. 8 to order probate judges not to comply with a federal court order.

"No, there was no hesitation," he said. "At the time Chief Justice Moore had not started bloviating on this topic, and so there was no reason to defy. I didn't ask for his opinion, and frankly didn't need it.

"The federal judge told us what we needed to do, and to me, that was as clear cut as I needed in order to make a decision," Reed continued.

Only nine probate judges issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Feb. 9. Now, a majority of judges are granting the licenses.

Karl said according to polls, the majority of Alabama residents oppose gay marriage.

"Aren't the people of Alabama essentially with Judge Moore on this?' he asked Reed. "Does that bother you?"

Reed said that doesn't bother him at all.

"We are a nation of laws and not of men," he said. "We are sworn to uphold the law in probate court" and the laws of the state and U.S. constitution.

"We understand that we can't bring politics and personal feelings into decisions we make day-to-day," Reed continued.

Reed was asked if the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage this summer will put an end to the dispute.

"I would love to tell you it would," Reed said, but with Moore at the helm of the Alabama Supreme Court "anything can happen."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 17, 2015, 08:18:05 pm
 ??? Didn't TX strike down their SSM ban LAST year?

http://time.com/3712617/gay-marriage-texas-ban-unconstitutional/
Texas Judge Says State’s Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional
2/17/15

But they won't start issuing marriage licenses yet

A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, in just the latest of numerous rulings striking down bans across the country.

Travis County Probate Judge Guy Herman made the ruling as part of an estate dispute, in which a woman sought to have her eight-year relationship with her late partner accepted as common-law marriage, the Austin Statesman reports.

But the ruling doesn’t necessarily mean the county will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said she can’t begin issuing the licenses right away. “I am scrambling, trying to find out if there is anything I can do,” she said. “Right now, I think it’s no, but we are checking.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on same-sex marriage nationally later this year.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 19, 2015, 03:00:41 pm
http://kut.org/post/first-same-sex-couple-married-texas
First Same-Sex Couple Married in Texas
2/19/15

Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant were married this morning in Austin. The county clerk issued the couple a marriage license based on a court order. Theirs is Texas' first same-sex marriage.

The order, the county clerk's office confirms, will only apply to this one couple, one of whom is "medically fragile." [See the judge's order here.]

KUT will continue to update this story as it develops.

Update 2:22 p.m. Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement. He says that the "Texas constitution defines marriage as consisting 'only of the union of one man and one woman'" and that he is committed to "ensuring that the Texas Constitution is upheld." Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made a statement in support of Attorney General Paxton, saying that he "hope the Texas Supreme Court will respond in a timely fashion in addressing General Paxton's appeals."

Update 1:14 p.m. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an emergency motion with the Texas Supreme Court to halt the order that allowed Goodfriend and Bryant to marry. Read the official attorney general press release here.

Update 11 a.m. "I am happily following the court order, but the court order only applies to this one couple," says Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir. "And it is based on the idea that there are circumstances with this couple…one of them is medically fragile and they may not survive the wait on what the courts are going to rule in the future as a final decision about gay marriage."

Texas' statewide ban on issuing licenses to same-sex couples is still in effect, but since Goodfriend and Bryant were able to get one, the question is when and if other couples will be able to do the same.

"I guess you could go to the clerk and say 'Hey, it's already been held unconstitutional by two judges now, you should give this to me,'" says Alex Albright, a Senior Lecturer at UT Law School. "But a clerk might be a little worried about doing that, because it could be held in violation of Texas law. So if they refuse to give it, then another couple could file basically the same petition and get another order requiring it. I think at some point somebody says 'It's all constitutional.'"

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles Texas cases, is in the midst of deliberating DeLeon v. Perry, a federal case challenging the statewide ban. The three-judge panel heard oral arguments in January.

Bryant and Goodfriend filed a petition against Debeauvoir based on an order handed down Tuesday by probate Judge Guy Herman that declared Texas' gay marriage ban unconstitutional. Judge David Wahlberg ordered today in favor of the couple's petition, which asked Debeauvoir to issue a them a license.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 27, 2015, 05:27:04 pm
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/child-gay-parents-writes-justice-kennedy
2/27/15
A Child of Gay Parents Writes to Justice Kennedy

Dear Justice Kennedy,

June is nigh, and with it will comes your ruling on the most contentious political issue of our time: marriage.

I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.

It’s very difficult to speak about this subject, because I love my mom. Most of us children with gay parents do. We also love their partner(s). You don’t hear much from us because, as far as the media are concerned, it’s impossible that we could both love our gay parent(s) and oppose gay marriage. Many are of the opinion I should not exist. But I do, and I’m not the only one.

This debate, at its core, is about one thing.

It’s about children.

The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community. If the Supreme Court were able to make rulings to affect feelings, racism would have ended fifty years ago. Nor is this issue primarily about the florist, the baker, or the candlestick-maker, though the very real impact on those private citizens is well-publicized. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships. I hope very much that your ruling in June will be devoid of any such consideration.

Government Should Promote the Well-being of Children
Children are the reason government has any stake in this discussion at all. Congress was spot on in 1996 when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act, stating:

At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.

There is no difference between the value and worth of heterosexual and homosexual persons. We all deserve equal protection and opportunity in academe, housing, employment, and medical care, because we are all humans created in the image of God.

However, when it comes to procreation and child-rearing, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are wholly unequal and should be treated differently for the sake of the children.

When two adults who cannot procreate want to raise children together, where do those babies come from? Each child is conceived by a mother and a father to whom that child has a natural right. When a child is placed in a same-sex-headed household, she will miss out on at least one critical parental relationship and a vital dual-gender influence. The nature of the adults’ union guarantees this. Whether by adoption, divorce, or third-party reproduction, the adults in this scenario satisfy their heart’s desires, while the child bears the most significant cost: missing out on one or more of her biological parents.

Making policy that intentionally deprives children of their fundamental rights is something that we should not endorse, incentivize, or promote.

The Voices of the Children
When you emphasized how important the voices of children with gay parents are, you probably anticipated a different response. You might have expected that the children of same-sex unions would have nothing but glowing things to say about how their family is “just like everyone else’s.” Perhaps you expected them to tell you that the only scar on their otherwise idyllic life is that their two moms or two dads could not be legally married. If the children of these unions were all happy and well-adjusted, it would make it easier for you to deliver the feel-good ruling that would be so popular.

I identify with the instinct of those children to be protective of their gay parent. In fact, I’ve done it myself. I remember how many times I repeated my speech: “I’m so happy that my parents got divorced so that I could know all of you wonderful women.” I quaffed the praise and savored the accolades. The women in my mother’s circle swooned at my maturity, my worldliness. I said it over and over, and with every refrain my performance improved. It was what all the adults in my life wanted to hear. I could have been the public service announcement for gay parenting.

I cringe when I think of it now, because it was a lie. My parents’ divorce has been the most traumatic event in my thirty-eight years of life. While I did love my mother’s partner and friends, I would have traded every one of them to have my mom and my dad loving me under the same roof. This should come as no surprise to anyone who is willing to remove the politically correct lens that we all seem to have over our eyes.

Kids want their mother and father to love them, and to love each other. I have no bitterness toward either of my parents. On the contrary, I am grateful for a close relationship with them both and for the role they play in my children’s lives. But loving my parents and looking critically at the impact of family breakdown are not mutually exclusive.

Now that I am a parent, I see clearly the beautiful differences my husband and I bring to our family. I see the wholeness and health that my children receive because they have both of their parents living with and loving them. I see how important the role of their father is and how irreplaceable I am as their mother. We play complementary roles in their lives, and neither of us is disposable. In fact, we are both critical. It’s almost as if Mother Nature got this whole reproduction thing exactly right.

The Missing Parent
I am not saying that being same-sex attracted makes one incapable of parenting. My mother was an exceptional parent, and much of what I do well as a mother is a reflection of how she loved and nurtured me. This is about the missing parent.

Talk to any child with gay parents, especially those old enough to reflect on their experiences. If you ask a child raised by a lesbian couple if they love their two moms, you’ll probably get a resounding “yes!” Ask about their father, and you are in for either painful silence, a confession of gut-wrenching longing, or the recognition that they have a father that they wish they could see more often. The one thing that you will not hear is indifference.

What is your experience with children who have divorced parents, or are the offspring of third-party reproduction, or the victims of abandonment? Do they not care about their missing parent? Do those children claim to have never had a sleepless night wondering why their parents left, what they look like, or if they love their child? Of course not. We are made to know, and be known by, both of our parents. When one is absent, that absence leaves a lifelong gaping wound.

The opposition will clamor on about studies where the researchers concluded that children in same-sex households allegedly fared “even better!” than those from intact biological homes. Leave aside the methodological problems with such studies and just think for a moment.

If it is undisputed social science that children suffer greatly when they are abandoned by their biological parents, when their parents divorce, when one parent dies, or when they are donor-conceived, then how can it be possible that they are miraculously turning out “even better!” when raised in same-sex-headed households? Every child raised by “two moms” or “two dads” came to that household via one of those four traumatic methods. Does being raised under the rainbow miraculously wipe away all the negative effects and pain surrounding the loss and daily deprivation of one or both parents? The more likely explanation is that researchers are feeling the same pressure as the rest of us feel to prove that they love their gay friends.

Children Have the Right to Be Loved by Their Mother and Father
Like most Americans, I am for adults having the freedom to live as they please. I unequivocally oppose criminalizing gay relationships. But defining marriage correctly criminalizes nothing. And the government’s interest in marriage is about the children that only male-female relationships can produce. Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. It moves us well beyond our “live and let live” philosophy into the land where our society promotes a family structure where children will always suffer loss. It will be our policy, stamped and sealed by the most powerful of governmental institutions, that these children will have their right to be known and loved by their mother and/or father stripped from them in every instance. In same-sex-headed households, the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child.

Have we really arrived at a time when we are considering institutionalizing the stripping of a child’s natural right to a mother and a father in order to validate the emotions of adults?

Justice Kennedy, I have long admired your consistency when ruling on the well-being of children, and I implore you to stay the course. I truly believe you are invested in the equal protection of all citizens, and it is your sworn duty to uphold that protection for the most vulnerable among us. The bonds with one’s natural parents deserve to be protected. Do not fall prey to the false narrative that adult feelings should trump children’s rights. The onus must be on adults to conform to the needs of children, not the other way around.

This is not about being against anyone. This is about what I am for. I am for children! I want all children to have the love of their mother and their father. Being for children also makes me for LGBT youth. They deserve all the physical, social, and emotional benefits of being raised by their mother and father as well. But I fear that, in the case before you, we are at the mercy of loud, organized, well-funded adults who have nearly everyone in this country running scared.

Six adult children of gay parents are willing to stand against the bluster of the gay lobby and submit amicus briefs for your consideration in this case. I ask that you please read them. We are just the tip of the iceberg of children currently being raised in gay households. When they come of age, many will wonder why the separation from one parent who desperately mattered to them was celebrated as a “triumph of civil rights,” and they will turn to this generation for an answer.

What should we tell them?


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 27, 2015, 05:42:52 pm
^^

Ephesians 5:31  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.



Genesis 2:24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 02, 2015, 01:40:20 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-blocks-nebraskas-gay-marriage-ban-144353494.html;_ylt=A0LEVxZ1uvRUGu4Ab9FXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzanF2bThlBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVklQMjgxXzEEc2VjA3Nj
3/2/15
Federal judge blocks Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A federal judge blocked Nebraska's gay marriage ban on Monday, and the attorney general's office immediately appealed the decision to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska sued the state in November on behalf of seven same-sex couples challenging the ban, which passed with the approval of 70 percent of voters in 2000. In addition to prohibiting gay marriage, the ban also forbids civil unions and legalized domestic partnerships.

Same-sex couples miss out on medical and financial benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said in issuing the injunction, which takes effect March 9.

"All of the plaintiffs have further demonstrated psychological harm and stigma, on themselves and on their children, as a result of the non-recognition of their marriages," he said in his 34-page ruling. "The plaintiffs have been denied the dignity and respect that comes with the rights and responsibilities of marriage."

Bataillon rejected the state's argument that the ban reflects the will of a majority of voters and promotes family stability. He said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately endorse same-sex marriage rights, which have been upheld in four appellate districts.

"The notion that some children should receive fewer legal protections than others based on the circumstances of their birth is not only irrational — it is constitutionally repugnant," he said.

Bataillon previously struck down Nebraska's gay marriage ban in 2005, and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it in 2006.

The Nebraska attorney general's office filed an appeal right after Bataillon issued the injunction. A spokeswoman for Republican Attorney General Doug Peterson said attorneys in their office were reviewing the ruling and would issue a statement later Monday.

Nebraska's case could be heard along with pending appeals filed by Missouri, Arkansas and South Dakota after judges in each of those states struck down same-sex marriage restrictions. Oral arguments in those cases are scheduled for May.

Gov. Pete Ricketts, a Republican, said the majority of Nebraskans voted for the constitutional amendment.

"The definition of marriage is an issue for the people of Nebraska, and an activist judge should not substitute his personal political preferences for the will of the people," Ricketts said.

Susan and Sally Waters of Omaha, who have been together for 17 years and were legally married in California in 2008, are among the couples suing to overturn the ban. They returned to their native Nebraska in 2010.

Sally Waters was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer in 2013, and says that without formal recognition of their marriage, her spouse won't receive the same tax and Social Security benefits to take care of the couple's children and will have to pay an 18 percent inheritance tax on half of the property they share, including their family home.

Another plaintiff, Nick Kramer, said he wants the ban to be overturned to give his partner, Jason Cadek, automatic custody rights for his adopted 3-year-old daughter. Kramer and Cadek married in Iowa in 2013.

"We're excited about this ruling and happy that Judge Bataillon decided that our family was worth recognizing."

Danielle Conrad, executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska, said "Nebraska's motto of 'equality before the law' rings true for gay and lesbian Nebraskans who seek to have their marriages recognized," following Bataillon's ruling.

Gay marriage is currently allowed in 37 states and the District of Columbia. The U.S. Supreme Court announced Jan. 17 that it would decide whether same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry everywhere in the U.S. A decision is expected by late June.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 03, 2015, 05:39:00 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/03/conservatives-filing-brief-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/
3/3/15
Conservatives filing brief in favor of gay marriage

Right Turn has learned that an impressive array of Republicans and Gen. Stanley McChrystal will be filing an amicus brief on Friday in support of gay marriage with the Supreme Court in DeBoer v. Snyder. The case will decide, in the wake of cases striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, if states can restrict marriage to heterosexual couples or if gay marriage falls within the protection afforded by the 14th Amendment.

The brief’s signatories include former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, conservative pundits S.E. Cupp and Alex Castellanos, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, former Mitt Romney senior advisers Beth Myers and Carl Forti, conservative economists Doug Holtz-Eakin (formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Greg Mankiw (formerly on the Council of Economic Advisers), former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend and former Massachusetts state Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. The presence of an esteemed general suggests that there is no segment of society in which gay marriage is not gaining acceptance. There are on the list centrist Republicans, more libertarian figures and even social conservatives. In a phone interview Mehlman said, “I think the diversity of the people is a reflection of what we have seen which is increased support in every demographic [for gay marriage].”

In the brief, the signatories argue that they “have concluded that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couples—heterosexual or gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriage provides stability for the children of same-sex couples, the value of which cannot be overestimated. In light of these conclusions, amici believe that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from the institution of civil marriage.” They argue that their belief in judicial restraint nevertheless is informed by their understanding that our “constitutional tradition empowers and requires the judiciary to protect our most cherished liberties against overreaching by the government, including overreach through an act of legislature or electorate. That principle, no less than our commitment to democratic self-government, is necessary to individual freedom and limited government.”

The signatories also argue from precedent that marriage is a fundamental right that enhances liberty. (“For those who choose to marry, the rights and responsibilities conveyed by civil marriage provide a bulwark against unwarranted government intervention into deeply personal concerns such as medical and child-rearing decisions.”) The brief contends, “It is precisely because marriage is so important in producing and protecting strong and stable family structures that the goal of strengthening families favors civil marriage for same-sex couples.” They make the case that even under the lowest level of 14th Amendment scrutiny, banning gay marriage cannot be defended:

Amici do not believe there is a legitimate, fact based justification for excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage. Over the past two decades, the arguments presented by proponents of such initiatives have been discredited by social science, rejected by courts, and contradicted by amici’s personal experience with same-sex couples, including those whose civil marriages have been legally performed and recognized in various States. Amici thus do not believe that any “reasonable support in fact” exists for arguments that allowing same-sex couples to join in civil marriage will damage or distort the institution, jeopardize children, or cause any other social ills. Rather, the facts and evidence show that permitting civil marriage for same sex couples will enhance the institution, protect children, and benefit society generally. Banning marriage for same-sex couples, in contrast, undermines these critical societal goals: Such bans impede family formation, harm children, and discourage fidelity, responsibility, and stability.

Put differently in layman’s terms, marriage confirms benefits and there are insufficient policy reasons to deprive gay couples of those benefits. Mehlman says, “The more people see gay couples getting married, the more they will see that marriage is a good thing.” With marriage, he says, “Freedom advances. Family values advance.” Mehlman thinks a decision in favor of gay marriage will be readily accepted. “I’ve noticed Republicans and conservatives respect the law,” he says of the reaction to previous cases. Indeed, it is remarkable how little discussion of gay marriage there has been in the presidential race. While potential candidates continue to voice their view that they “believe in traditional marriage,” many — including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida governor Jeb Bush — have all affirmed that they abide by court decisions. There is no real movement to defy the courts, and given the shift in opinions, it is nearly inconceivable that enough states could be induced to sign up for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Unlike abortion, which even proponents of abortion rights usually concede is a bad thing, gay marriage — no matter how its opponents might struggle — has not proved to be destructive or harmful in states where it has been adopted. The premise that gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage has never been very compelling. The longer Americans live with gay marriage, the less of an issue it seems to become. Americans remain a tolerant and accepting people. One strongly suspects that the court will agree with the signatories and thereby put the issue to rest as a legal matter. For many Americans, it is already a non-issue, and I agree with Mehlman that the rest will acknowledge once the court speaks that there is no turning the clock back.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 03, 2015, 09:19:31 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/alabama-same-sex-marriage_n_6796380.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
3/3/15
Alabama Supreme Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriage

The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered probate judges in the state to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

The ruling adds to the confusion surrounding gay marriage in the state. A federal judge found that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional in January. Some probate judges refused to comply with that ruling and Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore said that probate judges didn't have to follow it.

The conflicting orders prompted Elmore County Probate Judge John E. Enslen to ask for clarification from the Alabama Supreme Court, according to WBRC.

Read the Alabama Supreme Court's full decision here.

Below, more from The Associated Press:

Quote
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Supreme Court is ordering the state's probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
The all-Republican court sided with a pair of conservative organizations Tuesday in ruling that the U.S. Constitution doesn't alter the judges' duty to administer state law.

The court says Alabama has defined marriage as between only one man and one woman for about 200 years. And it says a federal court used "sleight of hand" in a case that resulted in most of Alabama allowing gay marriage last month.

The Alabama Policy Institute and the Baptist-run Alabama Citizens Action Program asked the court to halt same-sex unions after a federal judge in Mobile said Alabama laws banning them were unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 03, 2015, 09:29:45 pm
Be ye not deceived - all of this is a dog and pony show...

http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-supreme-court-halts-same-sex-marriage-011425681.html
3/3/15
Alabama Supreme Court halts gay-marriage licenses

The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the state's probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, saying a previous federal ruling that gay-marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution does not preclude them from following state law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The all-Republican court sided with the argument offered by a pair of conservative organizations when they appealed a decision last month by U.S. District Judge Callie Granade of Mobile, who ruled that both Alabama's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

Six justices concurred in the 134-page opinion, which wasn't signed, but the court's most outspoken opponent of gay marriage, Chief Justice Roy Moore, recused himself.

Immediately after Granade's ruling, Moore told probate judges across the state they were not obliged to issue same-sex marriage licenses. His stance created widespread confusion, prompting some judges to refuse to issue the licenses and others to shut down their operations for all couples, gay and straight, until they could get a clear answer.

Justice Jim Main agreed with the result but said he has concerns about procedural aspects "of this highly unusual case."

In a dissent, Justice Greg Shaw said it was "unfortunate" that federal courts refused to delay gay marriage in the state until the U.S. Supreme Court could settle the issue nationally. But, Shaw said, the state Supreme Court doesn't have the power to consider the issue.

The court released the decision while Gov. Robert Bentley and most state leaders were assembled in Montgomery for the state of the state address. A spokeswoman for Bentley said the administration was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.

Joe Godfrey, executive director of the Alabama Citizens Action Program, said he was "very excited" about the decision blocking judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We are concerned about the family and the danger that same-sex marriage will have. It will be a devastating blow to the family, which is already struggling," Godfrey said.

Godfrey said the decision will give "some stability" in Alabama until the U.S Supreme Court rules later this year. An attorney couples who filed suit to allow gay marriages said the court showed "callous disregard" in the decision and overstepped its bounds by declaring that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional, something the justices hadn't been asked to consider.

"It is deeply unfortunate that even as nationwide marriage equality is on the horizon, the Alabama Supreme Court is determined to be on the wrong side of history," said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The court's ruling Tuesday came in response to a request from the Alabama Policy Institute and the Baptist-run Alabama Citizens Action Program to halt same-sex unions after Granade's ruling.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 05, 2015, 11:29:05 am
http://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-hear-gay-marriage-cases-april-154545690.html
Businesses back gay marriage, top U.S. court sets argument date
3/5/15

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Big business rallied behind the gay marriage cause on Thursday as the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for April 28 on the contentious social issue that promises to yield one of the justices' most important rulings of 2015.

A total of 379 businesses and groups representing employers across various sectors, including Google Inc , American Airlines Group Inc , Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Johnson & Johnson , have signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in support of gay marriage due to be filed later on Thursday.

The court must decide whether states have the right to ban gay marriage. The nine justices will hear an extended 2 1/2-hour argument in cases concerning same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

The justices will consider whether same-sex marriage bans are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. A ruling is due by the end of June.

There are currently 37 states where gay marriage has been allowed to proceed, although a legal battle is ongoing in Alabama, with the state's top court putting it on hold.

The Supreme Court cases come two years after the high court set off a wave of pro-gay marriage lower-court rulings by invalidating a federal law that restricted benefits to heterosexual couples.

At the time of that June 2013 ruling, only 12 of the 50 states permitted gay marriage.

Businesses also backed gay marriage advocates in the previous Supreme Court case.

In the brief, lawyers with the Morgan Lewis law firm said that inconsistent state laws impose burdens on business and that marriage bans can conflict with corporate anti-discrimination and diversity policies.

"Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity, reduces uncertainty, and removes the wasteful administrative burdens imposed by the current disparity of state law treatment," the brief says.

Thomson Reuters Corp , which owns Reuters news, also signed on to the brief.

In an indication of the high interest in the matter, the court said it will release an audio recording of the oral arguments on the same day the case is heard. Normally, the court releases audio at the end of the week.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on March 08, 2015, 08:43:00 am
Over 300 Prominent Republicans Come Out of Closet in Support of Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Over 300 prominent Republicans have signed a brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court calling for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The amicus brief, or friend of the court brief, was led by former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Ken Mehlman, who also served as manager of George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign.

“One of the points that I hope people appreciate when they read the brief is that supporting marriage equality is, in fact, the conservative position,” Mehlman told the Boston Globe.

The brief argues that the 14th Amendment requires equal protection, which means that homosexuals should be permitted then to marry each other.

“Although amici hold a broad spectrum of socially and politically conservative, moderate, and libertarian views, amici share the view that laws that bar same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage, with all its attendant profoundly important rights and responsibilities, are inconsistent with the United States Constitution’s dual promises of equal protection and due process,” it reads.

Besides Mehlman, others who signed the brief include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, two aides to 2008 presidential candidate John McCain and his daughter Meghan, and several aides who served  Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who ran for office in 2012.

Dan Blum, the 2011-2012 campaign manager for Scott Walker, U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, former U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio of New York, former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and political commentator C.E. Cupp were also among the over 300 signees.

    Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, in 2013, approximately 130 Republican leaders signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court expressing their support for same-sex “marriage” as the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was being deliberated by the nine justices on the bench.

Those signing at that time included include Stephen Hadley, former security adviser to George W. Bushormer justice department official James Coney, former commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez, and former Reagan budget director David Stockman. Former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, former Massachusetts governors William Weld and Jane Wift, and former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman.

The list of signees grew to over 300 with this week’s submitted brief.

As previously reported, possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told the American Family Association (AFA) in October that if Republicans continue to give in on same-sex “marriage”, he—and other Christians—will leave the party.

f the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either. Because at that point, you lose me, I’m gone,” he declared. “I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this.”

A full list of signees may be viewed below.

List of Amici

https://www.scribd.com/doc/257812300/List-of-Amici

http://christiannews.net/2015/03/07/over-300-prominent-republicans-come-out-of-closet-in-support-of-homosexual-marriage/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 08, 2015, 02:32:30 pm
Quote
As previously reported, possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told the American Family Association (AFA) in October that if Republicans continue to give in on same-sex “marriage”, he—and other Christians—will leave the party.

Has he backed up his promise yet?

5

4

3

2

1

..................................................


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 11, 2015, 11:49:19 am
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/oklahoma-house-votes-to-end-state-marriage-licenses/article_20a61d10-17e8-5d68-87a4-59d35218d5e0.html
Oklahoma House votes to do away with state marriage licenses
Instead, wedding officiants would file certificates after the fact.

3/11/15

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma would stop issuing marriage licenses under legislation passed Tuesday afternoon by the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

House Bill 1125, by Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, would instead require those officiating marriage ceremonies to file after-the-fact “certificates of marriage” with court clerks’ offices. Alternatively, couples could file affidavits of common law marriage.

Russ said his bill is intended to “protect” county court clerks who do not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“This takes them out of the trap,” he said.

Somewhat ironically, the bill removes from statute language limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Other marriage restrictions would remain unchanged.

Opponents, most of them Democrats, said the bill would create a scenario in which Republicans will have legalized same-sex marriages even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the lower court rulings the bill seeks to counter.

Supporters of HB 1125 said it fittingly removes the state from the marriage process. “Marriage was not instituted by government,” said Rep. Dennis Johnson, R-Duncan. “It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.”

Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, and Rep. Emily Virgin, D-Norman, suggested that preventing those things might be harder to do under Russ’ proposal because court clerks would no longer be in position to require proof of identity and age.


The bill passed 67-24, with 10 members not voting, and now goes to the Senate.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on March 12, 2015, 05:43:17 am
Alabama Supreme Court Halts Illegal Marriages Statewide

Montgomery, AL - The Alabama Supreme Court has once again sided with Liberty Counsel in a historic case affirming natural marriage in the state. The Court’s new order directs Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which Judge Davis had previously done under the order of U.S. District Judge Callie Granade when she purported to overturn Alabama’s marriage laws.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/70377


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on March 14, 2015, 05:47:47 am
Oklahoma Bill would Abolish State’s Role in Granting Marriage Licenses, Leave It in Clergy Hands

 In an effort to block the state’s involvement with gay marriage, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday (March 10) to abolish marriage licenses in the state.
 
The legislation, authored by Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, amends language in the state law that governs the responsibilities of court clerks. All references to marriage licenses were removed.
 
Russ said the intent of the bill is to protect court clerks caught between the federal and state governments. A federal appeals court overturned Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage last year. Russ, like many Republican legislators in the state, including Gov. Mary Fallin, believes the federal government overstepped its constitutional authority on this issue.
 
Acknowledging that his bill is partially in response to the federal court ruling, Russ told ABC News affiliate KSWO that the federal government lacks the power to “force its new definitions of what they believe on independent states.”
 
Russ said the federal government is attempting to change the traditional definition of marriage, so his legislation would place the responsibility for officiating marriages in the hands of clergy.
 
“Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second,” Russ told The Oklahoman.
 
The legislation has sparked controversy, both in the Legislature and with groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Oklahoma Democrats are concerned that the legislation will lead to a “Pandora’s box” of issues, including polygamy, once the government’s authority to regulate marriage is removed.
 
Americans United released a statement opposing the bill, saying it is biased against same-sex couples and nontheists, including atheists. Russ has been unapologetic in defending his exclusion of nontheists from the right to marry.
 
“They don’t have a spiritual basis for a marriage and don’t want to have a clergy member or a priest or someone involved in the spiritual aspect,” Russ told KSWO, “then they can file an affidavit of common-law marriage.”
 
The bill would require court clerks to issue certificates of marriage signed by ordained clergy or affidavits of common-law marriage.
 
The Senate has not yet voted on the measure. Nor has Gov. Fallin indicated what she will do if the bill passes the Senate.
 

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/oklahoma-bill-would-abolish-state-s-role-in-granting-marriage-licenses-leave-it-in-clergy-hands.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 17, 2015, 08:42:15 am
Make no mistake - all of this is scripted and by design...in order to create order out of chaos.

Born-again believers - PLEASE stick to the WORD OF GOD!

Psalms 63:7  Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice.
Psa 63:8  My soul followeth hard after thee: thy right hand upholdeth me.
Psa 63:9  But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth.
Psa 63:10  They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes.
Psa 63:11  But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.


http://news.yahoo.com/alabama-federal-judge-declines-lift-gay-marriage-order-084938283.html
Alabama federal judge declines to lift gay marriage order
3/17/15

(Reuters) - The battle over gay marriage in Alabama heightened on Monday when a federal judge refused to stay her order to a county judge that he start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Callie Granade said in a five-page order that Mobile County Probate Court Judge Don Davis must comply with her previous ruling, which found the state's gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional.

Alabama's all-Republican Supreme Court had contravened that ruling earlier this month. It ordered probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that the ban was constitutional.

The clashing court orders underscore the depth of opposition to gay marriage in socially conservative Alabama. The gay-marriage ban was passed in 2006 by 81 percent of voters.

But the administration of President Barack Obama, along with big business, have come out in support of gay marriage, and oral arguments are scheduled before the U.S. Supreme Court next month on the constitutionality of bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. That hearing comes two years after the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that restricted benefits to heterosexual couples. Since then, momentum has been building for gay marriages: they are now allowed in 36 states and the District of Columbia, up from 12 before the ruling.

Davis, in the face of the contradictory directives by a federal judge and the state Supreme Court, had halted issuing all marriage licenses, to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and asked Granade to stay her ruling. She declined.

"Although the court would agree that the developments in these same-sex marriage cases has at times seemed dizzying, the court finds that Judge Davis has not shown that a stay is warranted," Granade wrote in the order.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 18, 2015, 06:33:49 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/daughter-of-two-moms-comes-out-against-gay-113987192687.html
Daughter of Two Moms Comes Out Against Gay Marriage
3/18/15

A South Carolina woman’s new essay about being raised by her lesbian mom contains a surprising revelation: she opposes marriage equality.

“Gay community, I am your daughter. My mom raised me with her same-sex partner back in the ’80s and ’90s,” writes Heather Barwick, a 31-year-old mother of four, in The Federalist. “I’m writing to you because I’m letting myself out of the closet: I don’t support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think. It’s not because you’re gay. I love you, so much. It’s because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.”

Barwick, who also recently shared her story with the Christian publication World — and who signed onto a letter of support to designers Dolce & Gabbana following their controversial statements regarding gay and lesbian parents — would not speak with Yahoo Parenting. She replied to an interview request with the following message: “At the moment I’m unable to do an interview or further commenting on my letter.”

In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman. “Her partner treated me as if I was her own daughter,” she writes. “Along with my mom’s partner, I also inherited her tight-knit community of gay and lesbian friends.” Her father, meanwhile, “wasn’t a great guy,” and “didn’t bother coming around anymore.”

As she grew up with her loving mom and stepmom, Barwick writes, her family taught her “how to be brave,” have “empathy,” “how to listen,” and “how to stand up for myself, even if that means I stand alone.” And for a while — into her 20s — that meant being an advocate for gay marriage. But now she’s had a change of heart.

“Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not,” she writes. “A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.”

But while her argument is heartfelt, note some gay-parenting supporters, it’s also full of holes.

“There’s nothing wrong with her sharing her experience — it’s an important conversation, and one that we have, and should have, all the time,” Gabriel Blau, executive director of the Family Equality Council, tells Yahoo Parenting. “But denying a huge swath of American citizens our civil rights is not an answer.”

Blau, who is raising a 7-year-old son with his husband, adds, “I think it’s disingenuous to say you don’t support LGBT rights and that your concern is children. Supporting marriage equality does not create our families — it creates support for families that already exist.” He adds that Barwick’s pain over the absence of a father “who chose not to be in the picture” and her conclusion to not support gay marriage represent two distinct issues, and that her connection of the two is “such a non-sequitur.” 

Abigail Garner, an LGBT family-rights educator and author of the book “Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is,” who was raised by two dads, is also confused by Barwick’s essay.

“Heather Barwick’s commentary mixes up several personal issues to offer a confusing argument that lacks logic,” she tells Yahoo Parenting. “It is true that some children of gay parents feel like they need to present their best public persona in order for their parents to be spared criticism, and I have written rather critically about the factors that create what I’ve referred to as ‘the pressure to be perfect.’”

But, Garner adds, “The next logical step in addressing that pressure, however, is certainly not to promote leaving these families in legal limbo by denying same-sex parents the right to marry. While I sympathize with Heather’s pain caused by being abandoned by her heterosexual father, her pain has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. We are all entitled to our personal narratives, but I strongly disagree with Heather’s contrived attempt to offer her personal story as a case for blocking other families’ access to marriage rights.”


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 16, 2015, 05:19:11 pm
Sin just breeds more sin...

http://news.yahoo.com/u-gay-marriage-battle-looms-attorneys-fight-over-193015620.html
As U.S. gay-marriage battle looms, attorneys fight over fees
4/16/15

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As a historic constitutional showdown over gay marriage looms this month at the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys are fighting over another bitterly disputed issue: their fees.

The battles over billables are erupting far from the Washington, D.C., limelight, in lower courts from West Virginia to Wisconsin and Oklahoma. They pit lawyers representing gay couples who challenged same-sex marriage bans against the states that had enacted the laws.

Typically in the United States, each party pays its own lawyers. But under special laws designed to encourage civil rights cases against the government, parties who win can petition the county, state or other entity they sued for "reasonable” attorneys' fees and costs.

In some cases, the fee requests run well into seven figures and are submitted on behalf of powerful law firms that a Reuters examination found have outsized access to the Supreme Court. Individuals and advocacy groups that file lawsuits aimed at the high court sometimes retain big-firm lawyers who specialize in arguing in that forum and boast remarkable success rates in getting their cases heard.

Gay-marriage litigation, especially, has become a magnet for prominent lawyers and national firms with connections to the Supreme Court. These firms can bill at $1,000 an hour or more, and when they or other Supreme Court experts seek repayment from state coffers at even discounted rates, the rhetoric gets nasty.

“They used a howitzer to kill a gnat,” wrote Tulsa County, Oklahoma, in objecting to a $368,827 fee request in January. The local lawyer for the lesbian couple who brought the case had recruited a team that included a University of Oklahoma constitutional law professor who is a former Supreme Court law clerk and who billed at $400 per hour.

FACE TIME AT THE COURT

For the nation's most elite law firms, the appeal of these cases goes beyond racking up billable hours: Litigation seeking gay-marriage rights, which began with a steadily growing number of cases filed by couples across the country in the last decade, has offered the possibility of coveted face time before the Supreme Court.

As Reuters reported last year in a series called "The Echo Chamber," a rarefied group of eight lawyers accounted for almost 20 percent of all the arguments made before the court by attorneys in private practice during the past decade. A dozen firms were involved in a third of cases the court accepted, the report found.

Litigating on behalf of gay couples can also provide firms with a marketing tool for clients and an edge in recruiting. Many firms take these cases on a "pro bono" volunteer basis and promote their efforts on their websites. As Reuters reported last year, at least 30 of the country's largest firms were involved in some stage of gay-marriage litigation, either representing parties or submitting "friend-of-the-court" briefs, all in favor of broader rights.

For example, the state of Wisconsin in February objected to paying $980 per hour to a Chicago-based partner from the large Mayer Brown firm, one of the most successful at getting its cases heard by the high court.

Wisconsin called Mayer Brown's rates "stratospheric." The state also questioned why the fee request - made on behalf of Mayer Brown and lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, which had initiated the case - included more than a dozen attorneys in five offices across the country for a total of nearly $1.2 million. Wisconsin in late March agreed to pay $1,055,000.

The attorneys seeking fees in Wisconsin and in Oklahoma said their requests were fair. They cited the complexity of the issue and their expertise. The gay-marriage advocates in Wisconsin who retained Mayer Brown said they had been unable to persuade any large firms in their state to help them.

Wisconsin officials declined to comment. Mayer Brown declined to discuss the settlement, but said it considered the case a pro bono project and that it planned to turn over any fee award to the ACLU.

A 19TH-CENTURY PRINCIPLE

Many federal laws permitting the recovery of attorneys fees in civil rights cases trace back five decades. The principle that private lawyers should be encouraged to sue for unconstitutional government action dates back even further, to the era after the Civil War. In modern times, lawyers have relied on these laws to obtain fees in litigation ranging from racial equality matters to gun rights cases.

Fights over fees are not unique to same-sex marriage litigation and don't always involve big firms. In a case before a U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C., the federal government is objecting to a $2 million fee claim from a lawyer who represented Shelby County, Alabama, in a case that led the Supreme Court to curtail the reach of voting rights law.

One of the biggest fee calculations in the gay-marriage litigation came from lawyers at the Gibson Dunn firm, including Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general who is among the top eight Supreme Court advocates identified by Reuters. Their tab: $1.7 million.

That figure emerged in a settlement agreement filed in January in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia. Olson and other Gibson Dunn lawyers said that they, together with a smaller firm, had spent close to 2,400 hours on their efforts to strike down that state's gay-marriage ban. Olson generally charges $1,800 an hour.

According to the settlement document, after weeks of negotiation, Gibson Dunn reduced both its hours and rates and agreed to take $459,000. Olson declined to comment.

In some cases, it is not known how much states are paying lawyers who win gay marriage cases. Earlier this year, Pennsylvania agreed in a confidential settlement to pay $1.5 million to lawyers who had challenged its gay-marriage ban. Reuters learned of that deal through a filing in a separate case. The $1.5 million payment was confirmed this week by the Pennsylvania governor's office.

The fee disputes stem largely from cases started after the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor favoring gay rights. In most of these cases, gay-marriage advocates prevailed as lower-court judges struck down state bans. The case currently before the Supreme Court stems from same-sex marriage prohibitions in four Midwestern states that were upheld by a federal appeals court.

Known as Obergefell v. Hodges, one of the four consolidated cases, the Supreme Court dispute tests two questions: whether the Constitution's equality guarantee covers a right to same-sex marriage, and if not, whether states that ban such unions must recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Gay-marriage advocates are arguing for a nationwide right to get married. Currently, 37 states of the 50 states and the District of Columbia allow it. The 13 states still prohibiting such unions are in mainly in the South and Midwest. The states that will defend their bans before the Supreme Court on April 28 are Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 20, 2015, 03:07:48 pm
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-20/gay-marriage-is-an-easier-sell-than-abortion?cmpid=yhoo
4/20/15
Gay Marriage Is an Easier Sell Than Abortion

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week on the question of whether the Constitution allows states to ban same-sex marriages. Whatever it decides, there seems little doubt that the U.S. is moving rapidly toward allowing such marriages, and with remarkably little public controversy. Contrast this with the issue of abortion, which has split the nation for 40 years (and counting).

Why the difference? There are three standard answers.

The Supreme Court ruined everything. A forgotten bit of history is that in the seven years before the court decided Roe v. Wade (1973), a significant NUMBER of states liberalized their abortion laws. Four, including New York, repealed them altogether. Thirteen others changed them to allow abortion when the pregnant woman’s health was endangered, and also in cases of ****, incest and fetal deformity. So, in the years before Roe, the number of legal abortions surged. The pro-choice trend was unmistakable, and was facing only limited controversy.

Some people believe that by suddenly declaring abortion to be a constitutional right, the court galvanized the pro-life movement and polarized the nation. ACCORDING to this view, the court’s premature involvement truncated a healthy democratic debate, and it was the arrogance of an activist court that produced the divisions of the past 40 years, and the energy and success of the pro-life movement.

If that's right, then the current court should perhaps be warned: A ruling this year that states must recognize same-sex marriage could provoke a backlash that wouldn't occur if democratic processes were allowed TO PLAY out.

The moral issues are fundamentally different. To many people, abortion is a grave moral wrong, because it involves the intentional killing of a living creature legitimately described as a person (perhaps from the point of conception, perhaps at some later stage). The most obvious justification for restricting people’s freedom is to prevent harm to others. When states PROTECT life, they prevent that harm.

It's a lot harder to say the same about bans on same-sex marriages. True, some of those who oppose such marriages contend that they cause harm -- for example, to children or to opposite-sex couples. But they struggle mightily to make those arguments convincing.

ACCORDING to this view, the controversy over same-sex marriage is quieter because the moral issues are easier.

It’s the social movements, stupid. Everyone knows that, in recent years, an energetic social movement has been working to legitimize same-sex marriage. While some of this work has involved constitutional arguments, most of it has been political -- the repetition of a simple question, illustrated with human faces: Why should some people -- YOUR brothers, sisters, children and friends -- be denied access to the defining institution of marriage?

Although many people strongly oppose same-sex marriage, and are willing to give time and MONEY to ban it, they haven't really created a social movement.

Things are different in the context of abortion: Both pro-life and pro-choice movements have been energized and amply funded for decades -- and their opposition both reflects and helps to perpetuate national polarization.

Which of the three explanations is right? The third one is the strongest. But the three actually work a lot better together than separately. Roe v. Wade did energize the pro-life movement, and no social movement can succeed unless people believe that it has a strong moral foundation.

One implication is clear: Same-sex marriages are unlikely to produce anything like the social divisions associated with abortion. Opponents of such marriages have a hard time identifying concrete social harms. And in the U.S., it’s pretty hard to MOBILIZE one’s fellow citizens without them.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 24, 2015, 12:50:11 pm
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Study-Number-of-married-same-sex-couples-triples-one-in-six-in-non-marriage-states/51278.html
Study: NUMBER of married same-sex couples triples; one in six in non-marriage states
4/24/15

LOS ANGELES — The number of legally married same-sex couples in the United States has tripled in the last year, according to a new poll released today by Gallup that was co-authored by Gary J. Gates, Blachford-Cooper Distinguished Scholar and Research Director at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, and Frank Newport, editor in chief of Gallup.
The new estimate suggests that 390,000 out of nearly 1 million same-sex couples in the U.S. are married. Estimates from the 2013 National Health Interview SURVEY had the figure at 130,000.

"As the Supreme Court considers on Tuesday if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, these data demonstrate that marriage is already widespread among same-sex couples," said Gates. "In the last year alone, estimates suggest that more than a quarter million of the 390,000 married same-sex couples in this country got married as state bans on such marriages were lifted across the nation. Even so, about one in six married same-sex couples live in states that currently don't recognize their marriage."

Findings from the poll also show that 60,000 married same-sex couples live in the 13 states that do not allow same-sex couples to marry.

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted from January to April 2015 on the Gallup U.S. Daily SURVEY. The study included a random sample of 80,568 adults ages 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 27, 2015, 05:20:41 pm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/26/gay-marriage-advocates-expect-supreme-court-to-rul/
4/26/15
Gay marriage advocates expect Supreme Court to rule in their favor
Justices to hear oral arguments in four cases on Tuesday


Advocates on both sides of the gay marriage issue prepared Sunday for HIGH NOON — at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

At that hour, perhaps the nation’s most contentious political issue will get its day in court, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in four cases that gay marriage advocates say will go down in HISTORY as landmarks of anti-discrimination law.

Competing rallies have been planned outside the high court Tuesday morning. More than a dozen people had ALREADY started camping out on the sidewalk near the court by Saturday morning in hopes of getting one of the coveted public seats for the 2-hour hearing.

SEE ALSO: Supreme Court gay marriage cases: What to expect

At issue in the cases are whether the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and whether states are required to recognize marriages conducted by other jurisdictions.

Dozens of gay couples from Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky are urging the court to AGREE that they have a fundamental right to marriage — and many attorneys and gay rights advocates believe they have the upper hand in the contest.

“If you read what the Supreme Court said” in a 2013 gay marriage case, Windsor v. United States, “there’s really no other way for the Supreme Court to come out in the case that’s up for argument on Tuesday,” lawyer Ted Olson said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Mr. Olson and David Boies argued successfully against California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 gay marriage ban.

They said they believe at least five of the nine justices are in favor of sanctioning same-sex marriage.

However, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, called the court’s thinking on the issue “a little bit unpredictable.”

“I think they could CONTINUE to give some deference to the states, but I do think we’ll probably have to clearly recognize what happens in another state,” Mr. Hutchinson said on “Meet the Press.”

The Supreme Court has affirmed that states have the constitutional right to create marriage policies — which is why it struck down the federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act in the 2013 Windsor case, Gene Schaerr, former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, told a recent briefing at the Family Research Council.

The Defense of Marriage Act was overturned precisely because it overrode states’ rights in domestic policies, he explained. It would be “a monumental act of judicial hypocrisy” for the high court to “turn Windsor around” and force states to adopt same-sex marriage.

The high court needs to “stick with” the logic of Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton’s majority opinion for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Caleb Dalton, litigation counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, said at a briefing at ADF offices Friday.

Moreover, if the high court AGREES that the cases deserve only rational-basis review, states can show they have multiple, legitimate reasons to keep marriage laws as the union of one man and one woman, Mr. Dalton said.



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 28, 2015, 05:50:53 am
Faith Leaders Call for Religious Protections ahead of Gay Marriage Hearing

 As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on Tuesday (April 28) that could wind up legalizing gay marriage nationwide, dozens of Christian leaders have issued a call to civil authorities to preserve “the unique meaning of marriage in the law” — but also to “protect the rights of those with differing views of marriage.”
 
The open letter “to all in positions of public service,” released Thursday (April 23), seems to reflect a growing recognition by same-sex marriage foes that they may be on the losing side of the legal battle to bar gay marriage and need to broaden their focus to securing protections for believers.
 
Gay marriage opponents are also losing the battle for the hearts and minds of their own flocks: Polls show that American believers, like the rest of the public, are growing much more accepting of same-sex relationships, or at least much less inclined to invest time or resources into waging the fight against legalizing gay marriage.
 
This week’s statement, “The Defense of Marriage and the Right of Religious Freedom: Reaffirming a Shared Witness,” was signed by 35 religious leaders representing Catholic, evangelical, Pentecostal, Orthodox and Mormon churches. The only non-Christian signatory was Imam Faizul Khan of the Islamic Society of Washington Area.
 
The leaders forcefully reiterate their shared belief that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman” and argue that apart from religious doctrines, the state “has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage” for the good of society and the “well-being of children.”
 
But they add that “this commitment is inseparable from affirming the equal dignity of all people and the necessity of protecting their basic rights” if, for example, the high court rules that all states must recognize gay marriage.
 
“No person or community, including religious organizations and individuals of faith, should be forced to accept this redefinition,” they write. “Government should protect the rights of those with differing views of marriage to express their beliefs and convictions without fear of intimidation, marginalization or unwarranted charges that their values imply hostility, animosity, or hatred of others.”
 
Arguments over how or whether believers must accommodate gay people have become a flashpoint in the culture wars and a source of political and legislative debates.
 
That was vividly demonstrated earlier this month when owners of an Indiana pizzeria who announced they would not cater a gay wedding because of their Christian belief became the focus of threats, and a rallying point for opponents of gay rights.
 
The state legislature later amended the religious freedom law that the pizzeria cited to make it clear the law could not be used to discriminate. A religious freedom law in Arkansas went through a similar revision. Both steps were seen as defeats for religious freedom advocates, even though Republicans deemed friendly to the cause were in power in both states.
 
Increasingly, some have been pointing toward a new law in Utah as an example of where religious freedom champions should put their energies. That law, passed in March in a deeply conservative state with the support of Mormon leaders, grants statewide protections against housing and employment discrimination for gay and lesbians as long as those measures safeguard religious freedom.
 
Among the statement signers are: Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; the Rev. Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; the Rev. Eugene F. Rivers, III, president of the Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies; George O. Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God; and Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/faith-leaders-call-for-religious-protections-ahead-of-gay-marriage-hearing.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 28, 2015, 05:52:01 am
Reuters: Top U.S. Court Appears On Cusp of Legalizing Gay Marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court’s arguments on Tuesday over same-sex marriage will cap more than two decades of litigation and a transformation in public attitudes. Based on the court’s actions during the past two years, a sense of inevitability is in the air: That a majority is on the verge of declaring gay marriage legal nationwide. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s pivotal member on gay rights, has been marching in this direction with opinions dating to 1996. In his most recent gay rights decision for the court in 2013, rejecting a legal definition of marriage limited to a man and woman for purposes of federal benefits, Kennedy deplored that U.S. law for making gay marriages “unequal.” That 5-4 decision did not address a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but lower court judges interpreted the ruling as an endorsement of it and began invalidating state bans.     

MORE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-justices-idUSKBN0NH0GE20150426?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on April 29, 2015, 07:33:41 am
‘We will not obey’: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

“We will not obey.”

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”

“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”

Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.

“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear.

“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.”

Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge.

He referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union.

An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

“Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. ...  What will we do, and how will we respond?”

Dobson said there’s no doubt that LGBT activists are targeting Christian business owners.

“For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.”

To be clear – the men and women who courageously signed this pledge did so knowing the hell storm that is about to be unleashed on them – and their families.

“We have no choice,” Staver told me. “We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/28/will-not-obey-christian-leaders-threaten-civil-disobedience-if-supreme-court/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on May 01, 2015, 05:46:46 am
American Jacobins: Sexual Revolutionaries Prepare the Battlespace for a De-Christianized America

In yesterday’s oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges (better known as the “gay-marriage case”), the solicitor general of the United States committed a classic “Kinsley gaffe”: He accidentally told the truth. Normally, in any argument about the next legal step of the sexual revolution, the accusation or even implication that there’s a slippery slope is grounds for outrage. Not only shouldn’t we explore the legal implications of expanding the definition of marriage, the very attempt is homophobic. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Yesterday, however, the solicitor general tugged at that curtain, revealing the Jacobin behind — a nonviolent version, of course, but a Jacobin nonetheless. It turns out that the sexual revolution — like the French Revolution — demands “de-Christianization.”

Here is the revealing exchange, widely reported yesterday:

 JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­ exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I ­­ I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I ­­ I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that,

Justice Alito. It is ­­ it is going to be an issue.

Those unfamiliar with the Bob Jones case or the law applicable to tax exemptions may not understand the full magnitude of that statement.

Tax exemptions are widely available and routinely granted, provided the exempt organization falls within the language and meaning of the statute. Here’s how the IRS describes the scope of the tax exemption: The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

The Bob Jones case, however, held that even if an entity fell within enumerated statutory categories — i.e., both religious and educational — the IRS could still lawfully withhold the tax exemption if the entity did not “serve a public purpose” and was “contrary to established public policy.” In other words, if the IRS could make a supportable finding that the tax-exempt entity was — in essence — harmful to civil society, it could withhold the exemption no matter the designated purpose of the organization. In Bob Jones, the Court found that explicit racial discrimination (bans on interracial relationships) meant that the college was not truly “charitable” and thus could not receive an exemption.

Thus, to be clear, the solicitor general said it was “going to be an issue” whether a religious college that upholds orthodox Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality could even be considered “charitable.” That a solicitor general could even raise the question represents a sea change in American political culture, potentially placing the government in a state of overt declared hostility against the most basic elements of orthodox faith.

But it’s worse than mere opposition. As the French revolutionaries learned, you can’t replace something with nothing. Thus, the revolutionary ideals themselves must be rendered sacred. In France, that meant the Cult of Reason or — if you weren’t willing to kick faith entirely to the curb — the Cult of the Supreme Being. Here, we’ve created the Cult of Sexual Autonomy, and this is its statement of faith from Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote in Obergefell: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Members of the Supreme Court are not philosopher-kings, and it’s safe to say that millions upon millions of citizens do not believe that such radical individualism is at the “heart of liberty.” Indeed, one of the great accomplishments of the American Revolution was the creation of a state that allowed people of all faiths, of no faith, and of radically divergent views of liberty to carve out a place in a new nation, sustain their own thriving communities of shared purpose, and live largely free of concern that the state would move to suppress or silence your faith and viewpoint.

In 1983, in the Bob Jones case, the Supreme Court made a limited exception to that general principle — as part of the ongoing attempt to eradicate the vestiges of our nation’s greatest moral error and its greatest physical crisis. To even begin to compare orthodox beliefs about marriage to the legacy of chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and a ruinous Civil War is to utterly take leave of any sense of moral proportion.

But the Jacobin advances the revolution by any means — and through any reasoning — necessary. To the Jacobin, you are either a revolutionary or an enemy, and no lesser light than the federal government’s chief constitutional advocate has now raised the specter of a legal regime far worse than “separation of church and state.” For the sexual revolutionaries, it’s the state against the church.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417670/american-jacobins-sexual-revolutionaries-prepare-battlespace-de-christianized-america


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 19, 2015, 08:29:37 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/support-same-sex-marriage-hits-record-high-us-215843361.html
5/19/15
Support for same-sex marriage hits record high in US

Washington (AFP) - Support for same-sex marriage in the United States is at an all-time high of 60 percent, a new poll showed Tuesday as the Supreme Court gears up to weigh in on the issue.

The rate of support rose five percent from last year, and is at its highest since surveys began to address the matter in 1996, pollsters Gallup said in a statement.

A majority of Americans first supported legal marriage for gays and lesbians for the first time in 2011, Gallup said; since then, the number has steadily risen.

"Support for the legality of gay marriages in the US has been a fast-changing trend. Just two decades ago, only 27% of Americans backed gay marriage, while 68% opposed," Gallup said.

But "by 2005, the percentage in favor had increased by 10 points to 37%, and by 2010 it had reached 44%."

The US Supreme Court is due to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in a month, a landmark ruling which could settle once and for all legal questions surrounding marriage for lesbians and gays.

In the US federal system, 37 out of 50 states, plus the capital Washington, DC, already allow same-sex marriage. Other states do not allow it, and do not recognize those marriages from other US states.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on May 21, 2015, 04:50:36 am
Ruth Bader Ginsberg Officiates Same-Sex ‘Wedding’ as Supreme Court Deliberates National Case

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated a same-sex “wedding” last weekend as the nation’s high court deliberates a monumental case that will decide states’ rights regarding the definition of marriage.

Ginsburg wore her traditional black robe and lace collar as she presided over the ceremony of Michael Kahn and Charles Mitchem. According to reports, Ginsburg put an emphasis on the word “Constitution” as she declared that she was uniting them under the “powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.”

“No one was sure if she was highlighting her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case under consideration by the Supreme Court that could determine whether same-sex marriage is constitutional,” wrote New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

As previously reported, Ginsburg, nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton, officiated a ceremony in 2013, where she presided over an event for Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and his partner John Roberts.

“I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship,” she said prior to the occasion, according to the Washington Post.

But as a result of her involvement and outspokenness on the matter, some called for Ginsburg to recuse herself from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which she has not done.

The Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Alabama, led by the wife of “Ten Commandments judge” Roy Moore, filed a motion last month asking for both Ginsburg and Elena Kagan—who likewise has officiated a ceremony—to excuse themselves from the case. It noted that 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) requires that a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

    Connect with Christian News

“Common sense dictates that one who has performed same-sex marriages cannot objectively rule on their legality,” President Kayla Moore stated. “If these justices participate in this case, the court’s decision will forever be questioned as being based on their personal feelings rather than on the Constitution itself.”

During oral argument last month, Ginsburg suggested that the definition of marriage has evolved over time.

“We have changed our idea about marriage,” she said. “Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female.”

“[Y]ou wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible,” Ginsburg stated. “Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was a marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the people would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.”

But other judges expressed a hesitancy to change the definition for one particular type of relationship.

“This definition has been with us for millennia,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’”

http://christiannews.net/2015/05/20/ruth-bader-ginsberg-officiates-same-sex-wedding-as-supreme-court-deliberates-national-case/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 30, 2015, 12:17:00 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMb1U24WYc0


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 03, 2015, 11:22:16 am
Alabama Senate Votes to Scrap Marriage Licenses

The Alabama Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would fundamentally alter the state’s approach to the institution of marriage. The bill—passed 22-3 by the senate and now heading for the house—would scrap marriage licenses and replace them with marriage contracts that do not require a marriage ceremony for validity. The move is being interpreted as an end-around to what many suspect will be a pro-gay marriage Supreme Court ruling. 

The bill, SB377, ends the issuance of marriage certificates, instead requiring a contract filed with a probate judge. "Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein," the bill states.

WHNT19 News cites attorney Jake Watson, who said the bill would fundamentally change the way the state has handled marriage for over a century.

"It really does away with the traditional sense of a marriage certificate and what we’ve been dealing with in Alabama as far as marriage certificates for more than a hundred years, I believe," said Watson.

The potential problem, he argued, is that the state would retain the right to define who is legally allowed to receive a contract.

"A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married, that’s going to be the catch," he said. "What is legally authorized to be married? Under the State of Alabama Law, that would not include same-sex marriage."

Though the move might seem like an exercise in semantics, it could provide Alabama some legal basis for continuing to define marriage even with a national mandate for gay marriage licenses, likely requiring further court action to overrule. But the law is also a potential first step toward states getting out of the marriage business altogether, a direction some on the right have begun to champion more and more.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/alabama-senate-votes-scrap-marriage-licenses


Title: Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 same-sex marriage is legal nationwide in landmark dec
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 09:07:36 am
Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 same-sex marriage is legal nationwide in landmark decision - @NBCNews


Title: Re: Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 same-sex marriage is legal nationwide in landmark dec
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2015, 09:16:31 am
Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 same-sex marriage is legal nationwide in landmark decision - @NBCNews

Game over - we read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah.

But the GREAT news is that our TRUE home is drawing nigh...


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 09:18:07 am
JOHN ROBERTS ON GAY RULING:

'If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it'


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 09:28:25 am
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on SCOTUS ruling: 'The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.'


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2015, 09:32:14 am
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on SCOTUS ruling: 'The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.'

And Jindal's a Roman Catholic - I wonder why he hasn't called out his Roman Catholic buddy Anthony Kennedy(who provided the swing vote).

As for Roberts - he buddies with Obamacare and trampled the Constitution, he needs to stay quiet.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: FervorForFaith on June 26, 2015, 11:20:28 am
My wife called me on my lunch break to tell me the news. We're so close now, is all I can say. America's fate is sealed at this point, too. The most powerful country in the world adopts this new sin to its portfolio? To go along with child sacrifice and all the other ungodly things that happen here? America's fate is sealed.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 11:29:40 am
Quote
Photo: Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez, who is openly gay, reacts to SCOTUS ruling at local records office: 'I've known all along I was a decent human being, but today it was validated by the federal government' - @melissa_repko

 :o this how they think.


Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2015, 11:35:50 am
My wife called me on my lunch break to tell me the news. We're so close now, is all I can say. America's fate is sealed at this point, too. The most powerful country in the world adopts this new sin to its portfolio? To go along with child sacrifice and all the other ungodly things that happen here? America's fate is sealed.

I thought they would have announced it on their last day before summer recess(Monday), b/c the highest profile cases are usually announced on their last day.

Which is why I was very surprised when I saw Mark's post in the shoutbox, right after I got done reading a long article in one of the threads here. I turned on the tv around 8:30am Central here, but when I saw they were largely focused on other stuff, I thought the ruling wouldn't come today(and did other stuff instead). Then the next thing I knew, the ruling came.

They were quicker than usual in getting this out. Yes, America's fate is sealed - our true home is coming in the imminent future!


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: tennis shoe on June 26, 2015, 11:38:45 am
Another step toward welcoming the AC world-wide. You know, the guy that doesn't care for women?

I have a feeling that, as this perversion normalizes and propagates, real Christians, driven by God's Holy Spirit, will be considered to be “standing in the way of progress” by their mere presence on the earth.

I'm not the only one that has had that thought.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 11:44:16 am
They will be coming for the Fundamental Evangelicals next. As we will not embrace their beliefs and ideas. Everything we do will now be a hate crime. And death shall be the punishment.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 11:52:51 am
Meghan McCain, daughter of US Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), addressing Republicans on Twitter about SCOTUS ruling: 'This is the future and everyone better now finally get in line. - @MeghanMcCain


That means us, because she sure wont say that to a muslim.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: tennis shoe on June 26, 2015, 11:57:20 am
People that will kill the messenger really reveals the spirit behind it all. Always thought it bizarre that people depicted as stomping around shouting “Kill the haters!” would have such vitriol. It's not even logical.

They will be coming for the Fundamental Evangelicals next. As we will not embrace their beliefs and ideas. Everything we do will now be a hate crime. And death shall be the punishment.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2015, 12:00:53 pm
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/26/john-roberts-i-cant-help-but-think-this-decision-opens-the-door-to-legal-polygamy/
6/26/15
John Roberts: I … can’t help but think this decision opens the door to legal polygamy



Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 12:01:03 pm
People that will kill the messenger really reveals the spirit behind it all. Always thought it bizarre that people depicted as stomping around shouting “Kill the haters!” would have such vitriol. It's not even logical.


Also do not forget, its them that is always crying for tolerance on their beliefs but not for anyone else's.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 12:01:54 pm
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/26/john-roberts-i-cant-help-but-think-this-decision-opens-the-door-to-legal-polygamy/
6/26/15
John Roberts: I … can’t help but think this decision opens the door to legal polygamy



up next? Chickens...

(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/d/d7/Gonzo_Camilla.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140309181459)

No shame


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: tennis shoe on June 26, 2015, 12:11:24 pm
Also do not forget, its them that is always crying for tolerance on their beliefs but not for anyone else's.

That's because they've never wanted “tolerance”. The US did that.

No, no, no.

They want everybody to embrace, accept, and promote their lifestyle.

That's what evil does if left unchecked. It grows and matures to a level of self-destructive saturation. Too bad it has to get this far for people to realize that sin. as defined by God, and not man, is a really bad idea.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2015, 12:18:53 pm
That's because they've never wanted “tolerance”. The US did that.

No, no, no.

They want everybody to embrace, accept, and promote their lifestyle.

That's what evil does if left unchecked. It grows and matures to a level of self-destructive saturation. Too bad it has to get this far for people to realize that sin. as defined by God, and not man, is a really bad idea.

Nothing good dwells in the flesh - one walks in the flesh, he/she will never NEVER be satisfied. It's quite contrary for born-again believers walking in the Spirit...

Hebrews 13:5  Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: tennis shoe on June 26, 2015, 12:37:26 pm
Nothing good dwells in the flesh - one walks in the flesh, he/she will never NEVER be satisfied. It's quite contrary for born-again believers walking in the Spirit...

Hebrews 13:5  Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Without God's Spirit, people are walking around with a big empty space inside of them. Everything the world and the devil offers are nothing but temporary band-aids to that emptiness. Chemicals, sex, movies, and technological gadgets, hobbies, and work only serve to temporarily distract a person from feeling that emptiness. But it's still there the next day or the next week.

A state of “boredom” is commonly understood. But the cause of this state is not.

If people are really honest with themselves, they'll fine a deep yearning or desire for something that this world cannot provide.

“Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

Christ offers us a full-spread buffet with all the trimmings.

While the world offers table scraps and crumbs off the floor.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 26, 2015, 12:44:52 pm
When I was a lost man, I used to be an avid Hollywood movie watcher through much of the 90's(at one point, I must have seen almost every movie in the video store) - it brought me temporary happiness after I saw whatever movie, but the next day I would feel very rotten. And the cycle would continue.

Praise God he got me out of this - b/c watching movies did nothing more than condition my mind with alot of wickedness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv-vGF_E8VQ


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 30, 2015, 07:30:12 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA7gWJqz7y0


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on July 09, 2015, 08:21:56 am
#6 On June 30th, an unexpected blood moon was seen over a significant portion of the United States.  This also happens to be the exact day when the Supreme Court gay marriage decision came out.  The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Caiden Cowger…

    On June 30, 2015, a surprise blood moon appeared in the sky, that was only seen in the United States.

    According to the National Weather Service, large wildfires in Canada have been burning. Due to extremely high winds, smoke from these fires have traveled into the United States.

    According to NBC-Chattanooga, “the smoke should remain in the higher atmosphere and not affect air quality, it gives the moon and sun a rosy glow.

    Here’s what causes the effect:

    As light from the moon or sun enters the atmosphere it gets scattered by particles like water, aerosols, and in this case smoke. Green, blue, and purple colors are sent in all directions but colors with longer wavelengths like red, orange and yellow continue through the atmosphere and remain visible to the human eye.”

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/10-very-strange-things-that-have-happened-in-just-the-past-few-weeks

 :o


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on July 20, 2015, 12:31:20 pm
Here Are The 379 Companies Urging The Supreme Court To Support Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/marriage-equality-amicus_n_6808260.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on March 16, 2016, 12:44:30 am
Tennessee House Passes Measure Opposing Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Decision

The Tennessee House of Representatives has passed a measure that pushes back against the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision.
 
LifeSiteNews.com reports that the measure says that the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges wrongly usurped power from the states in making a federal law which some states were not in favor of.
 
The motion states, “BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that this body expresses its disagreement with the constitutional analysis in Obergefell v. Hodges and the judicial imposition of a marriage license law that is contrary to the express will of this body and the vote of the people of Tennessee.”
 
“This lawsuit does not deny that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review,” said former state senator David Fowler.  Rather, he said, the lawsuit asks, “How does anyone, regardless of the sexes of the parties, get a valid marriage license pursuant to an invalid law?"
 
Support for same-sex marriage in Tennessee is only at 29 percent, according to a poll released by Middle Tennessee State University. In addition, 57 percent of Tennessee residents (including 44 percent of Democrats) strongly oppose it.
 
Since the majority of Tennesseans oppose the Supreme Court’s decision, the House passed the recent measure to call it into question.
 
“I wrote this resolution because the legislature is without standing to sue the court over their decree that purported to make new law in Tennessee,” said Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Joliet.
 
The measure will now go to the Senate Judiciary Committee for review.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/tennessee-house-passes-measure-opposing-supreme-court-s-gay-marriage-decision.html


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 10, 2016, 01:00:02 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/04/09/austin-indiana-hiv-outbreak/82837934/
4/9/16
190 people in this Indiana town were diagnosed with HIV

AUSTIN, Ind. — From the start of the HIV outbreak here, health officials emphasized that nothing set Scott County apart from many other rural communities where opioid drug use had become an epidemic.

This could happen anywhere, people were told.

Many people here had viewed HIV as a big-city disease, something that might afflict people in San Francisco or New York. But Austin is a small city of about 4,000 people 40 miles north of Louisville, Ky.

Then in February 2015, the first 30 cases of HIV were reported. By mid-March, the number had climbed to 55.

State health officials, the governor and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were looking for answers. Few public health crises have unfolded so rapidly.

Now, a year later, the outbreak is at 190 cases. But the sickness runs deeper.

Poverty envelops this city. Empty storefronts dot the main street. Many homes are boarded up or have makeshift tarps instead of windows. Fewer than 10% of Austin's residents have earned a college degree.

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 09, 2016, 03:49:13 pm
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/federal-judge-bars-alabama-from-blocking-gay-marriage/
Federal judge bars Alabama from blocking gay marriage
6/8/16


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 02, 2016, 09:38:52 pm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-judge-blocks-mississippi-law-limiting-gay-marriage-40269162?yptr=yahoo
7/1/16
LGBT Rights Groups Win as US Judge Blocks Mississippi Law

Supporters of the LGBT rights movement won the latest round against conservatives when a federal judge ruled that a Mississippi "religious objections" law is unconstitutional, just moments before it was to take effect Friday.

The decision could influence federal judges considering challenges to other state laws and will be held up by gay-rights advocates as another reason for legislatures to back off considering similar bills.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant vowed to appeal.

The law sought to protect three beliefs: That marriage is only between a man and a woman; that sex should only take place in such a marriage; and that a person's gender is determined at birth and cannot be altered.

It would allow clerks to cite religious objections to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and would protect merchants who refuse services to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people. It could affect adoptions and foster care, business practices and school bathroom policies.

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Mark on August 25, 2016, 06:00:22 pm
Johns Hopkins Psychiatrists Assert There Is No ‘Scientific Evidence’ People Are Born Homosexual

Two psychiatrists from Johns Hopkins University assert in a new report that there is no scientific evidence to support that people are born homosexual or innately oriented to have sexual relations with the same gender.

The report, Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences, was written by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh and published in The New Atlantis.

“Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the ‘born that way’ hypothesis, simply are not supported by science,” the men write. “The literature in this area does describe a small ensemble of biological differences between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, but those biological differences are not sufficient to predict sexual orientation, the ultimate test of any scientific finding.”

Mayer and McHugh state that their conclusion is based on 200 peer-reviewed studies in matters such as epidemiology, genetics, psychiatry and neuroscience, as well as embryology.

In their report, they criticize what they call the “common assumption that sexual desires, attractions, or longings reveal some innate and fixed feature of our biological or psychological constitution, a fixed sexual identity or orientation,” finding even the phrase “sexual orientation” to be ambiguous and without “widely accepted scientific definitions.”

“Furthermore, we may have some reasons to doubt the common assumption that in order to live happy and flourishing lives, we must somehow discover this innate fact about ourselves that we call sexuality or sexual orientation, and invariably express it through particular patterns of sexual behavior or a particular life trajectory,” Mayer and McHugh write.

They also express doubt that one is born in the wrong body, that “there is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.” Rather, the psychologists note that the philosophy that gender is a “social construct” grew out of the feminist movement.

“This idea has been an important part of a feminist movement to reform or eliminate traditional gender roles,” Mayer and McHugh write, pointing to several feminist literary works.

But they note that atypical behavior, such as when girls tend to be tomboys or boys play with effeminate toys, does not change the person’s real sex.

“The underlying basis of maleness and femaleness is the distinction between the reproductive roles of the sexes; in mammals such as humans, the female gestates offspring and the male impregnates the female,” Mayer and McHugh outline. “More universally, the male of the species fertilizes the egg cells provided by the female of the species.”

“This conceptual basis for sex roles is binary and stable, and allows us to distinguish males from females on the grounds of their reproductive systems, even when these individuals exhibit behaviors that are not typical of males or females,” they explain.

In an introductory video to the study, the men note that further studies are needed on these matters as societal declarations that one’s particular proclivities in regard to sexuality and gender are innate may not be accurate.

“I think that in the transgender world and in the world of both heterosexual and homosexual life, the assumption that science has given us full answers and it is complete, is closing off debate about what further science is needed, [and] what the nature of the contemporary science really is,” McHugh states.

“The claim that it is settled now, that the issue such as born that way, or you’re fixed, or it’s immutable—there is no evidence from that science that those things are correct,” he says.

Psalms 51:5 teaches mankind, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Jesus also outlined in John 3 that since all men are born in sin being descendants of Adam, and by their very nature have tendencies to distort God’s perfect design, they must be born again and receive a new nature.

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” Jesus said. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again.”


http://christiannews.net/2016/08/25/johns-hopkins-psychiatrists-assert-there-is-no-scientific-evidence-people-are-born-homosexual/


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 30, 2016, 04:49:24 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/alabama-chief-justice-suspended/index.html
9/30/16
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore suspended over same-sex marriage order
 (CNN)Alabama's chief justice Roy Moore was suspended without pay Friday for the rest of his term for directing probate judges to enforce the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
The state Court of the Judiciary, in a 50-page decision, cited Moore's "disregard for binding federal law" as a reason for the suspension.

Moore's administrative order to probate judges was issued in January -- seven months after a landmark Supreme Court ruling legalized gay and lesbian nuptials nationwide.

Moore's term runs through January 2019. He is 69 and will be ineligible to run for re-election because of his age.

Friday's ruling also cited Moore's "history with this court," saying it was the second time he had been brought before the judiciary court for "actions grossly inconsistent with his duties as Chief Justice."

The chief justice made national headlines in 2003 when he defied a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a public judicial building on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

Both times, Moore's actions made him a hero to evangelicals, enraged liberals and caught the attention of the state judicial commission.

"The result in both instances has been a lengthy, costly proceeding for this court, the (Judicial Inquiry Commission), and, most unfortunately, the taxpayers of the State," the judiciary court ruling said.

Though Moore's defiance in 2003 cost him his job, he recaptured the top judicial post in a statewide election in 2012.

The Liberty Counsel -- a nonprofit legal and education organization that promotes religious freedom -- said in a statement that the suspension was "an unbelievable violation of the law" and "de facto removal from the bench."

"The rule of law should trump political agendas," said Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel chairman and one of Moore's attorneys.

"Sadly, today that is not the case," he said. "What this decision tells us today is that Montgomery has a long way to go to weed out abuse of political power and restore the rule of law."

Staver said Moore's administrative order directing probate judges to enforce the state ban on same-sex marriage "did not change the status quo."

"It did not create any new obligation or duty," he said in a statement. "To suspend Chief Justice Moore for the duration of his term is a miscarriage of justice and we will appeal this case to the Alabama Supreme Court. This case is far from over."

In January, Moore's administrative order said the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay and lesbian nuptials nationwide -- Obergefell v. Hodges -- was targeted at Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee but did not specifically address the Alabama ban.

"Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect," Moore wrote at the time.

Moore has consistently fought against same-sex marriage.

In February 2015, he ordered lower court judges in Alabama not to implement a federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. He later disputed a federal court order that directed all probate judges to cease enforcement of Alabama's marriage ban.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a religious liberty watchdog group, on Friday praised the judiciary court ruling.

"The people of Alabama are better off without Roy Moore on the court," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said in a statement. "He is an embarrassment to the state, and his antics long ago became tiresome."


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 14, 2016, 09:12:13 am
https://gma.yahoo.com/gop-president-elect-donald-trump-says-same-sex-084400750--abc-news-topstories.html#
GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law
11/14/16

President-elect Donald Trump said he’s “fine” with same-sex marriage as the law of the land, calling the issue "settled" by the Supreme Court.

The comments – in Trump's first television interview since winning the presidency – sharply contrast with his party’s orthodoxy, his running mate’s longtime position and comments he made during the Republican primaries.

“It’s law,” he said in an interview with CBS’ "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday. “It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.”

more


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 25, 2017, 02:27:49 pm
Ezekiel 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Eze 16:50  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.


http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=91635
They Just Released A New Poll On Socialist and It's Bad!!

According to an info wars survey on Socialist, 61 % of them live at home with their parents.


Infowars.com reported: A survey of users on Reddit’s r/socialism board has found that 61% of respondents live with their parents, 48% are unemployed and just 14% support freedom of speech.

The results of the poll confirmed many of the stereotypes attached to modern day “progressives” – that they are largely dependent on others and have total disregard for bedrock freedoms and the rule of law.

While a paltry 14% support completely unrestricted free speech, 46% support “violent protest” (otherwise known as rioting).

The survey also found that 69% of respondents were uneducated.

“After the results of the poll were posted, members of Reddit’s r/Drama quickly found and posted the numbers to mock /r/socialism. As to be expected, the proponents of socialism were shredded in the comments for fulfilling the exact stereotype that we had long since suspected to be true on the far left – they are unemployed, uneducated communist losers,” comments the Department of Memes blog.

The survey, conducted via Google Forms, correlates with a study undertaken of left-wing political activists in Berlin which found that a whopping 92% still lived with their parents and one in three was unemployed.

Despite leftists and socialists constantly virtue-signalling about their humanitarianism, another study in America found that it was Republicans who were significantly more likely to donate to charitable causes.

“Less well-off families from red states donate a relatively higher – and growing – proportion of their money to charity” than liberals, a Philanthropy Chronicle investigation found.

When it comes to tolerance, another sacred cow of the left, conservatives also come out on top.

A Pew Research poll found that liberals are far more intolerant than conservatives, with nearly half (47%) of liberal Democrats saying a friend’s support for Donald Trump would put a “strain” on their relationship, while just 13% of of Republicans and Republican leaners said a friend’s support for Hillary Clinton would do the same.


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 28, 2017, 01:45:30 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7aa3-S3Av4


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 11, 2017, 07:01:37 pm
(http://media.sermonaudio.com/gallery/photos/CooleyJason-02.jpg)

Bible Blueprint For Cultural Destruction
9/10/2017 (SUN)
Audio: http://mp3.sa-media.com/download/91017233529/91017233529.mp3


Title: Re: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 28, 2017, 06:13:05 pm
https://hollowverse.com/hugh-hefner/
Hugh Hefner was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois.

Hefner describes his religious upbringing as in a “conservative, Midwestern, Methodist” family.1 And in talking about it, Hefner paints a picture of guilt-ridden Puritanism, an environment and lifestyle he rejected and that caused him to become the “pamphleteer”2 of the sexual revolution.3

His current views of religion are:

a) it’s ridiculous.

b) no one should claim to know the answers to these cosmic questions.

It all amounts to a somewhat antagonistic agnosticism. He has said:

    It’s perfectly clear to me that religion is a myth. It’s something we have invented to explain the inexplicable…
What does it all mean — if it has any meaning at all? But how can it all exist if it doesn’t have some kind of meaning? I think anyone who suggests that they have the answer is motivated by the need to invent answers, because we have no such answers.4

So we can’t know the answer to tough, cosmological questions. Fair enough. But what about religion’s utility as instilling morals into society (for fear of damnation in the afterlife, of course)? He says:

    An afterlife would be a really good deal. Yeah, I would vote in favor of that. But in the meantime, I urge one and all to live this life as if there is no reward in the afterlife and to do it in a moral way that leaves this world a little better place than you found it
.5

Politics and Pornography

Unsurprisingly, Hefner’s politics have historically been oriented toward First Amendment rights and positioned against conservatism. His business has, for its entire existence, been pitted against “traditional” values of morality, decency and purity–and he’s become quite the warrior.

So important is freedom of expression to Hefner that he has established two awards that he gives out to deserving recipients. One is the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment award, given to 100 embattled defenders of First Amendment rights every year. The second is the Freedom of Expression Award, given to one person every year who is “dedicated to defending, advocating, or supporting the First Amendment through their personal or professional pursuits.”6

In the realm of party politics, Hefner is a longtime Democrat–a very longtime Democrat. He said:

    I was a Democrat in a Republican household before I could even vote
.7

Hefner has given over $130,000 to political candidates and organizations–and not a single Republican.8

And he’s quite liberal. Hefner feels that his media empire has been a liberating force for women, that what some feminists might consider sexual exploitation, he considers a chance to strut their stuff and fly in the face of Puritanical bondage.9 He said:

    We fought for birth control rights and the change in birth control laws, the change in abortion laws, we fought cases to give women the right to choose…10


Most recently, Hefner has thrown his considerable clout behind the gay marriage movement, making an official statement on the subject. An excerpt:

    Today, in every instance of sexual rights falling under attack, you’ll find legislation forced into place by people who practice discrimination disguised as religious freedom. Their goal is to dehumanize everyone’s sexuality and reduce us to using sex for the sole purpose of perpetuating our species. To that end, they will criminalize your entire sex life.11

Keep on truckin’ Hef. You and your scantily-clad bunnies are as American as apple pie and baseball.