End Times and Current Events
June 26, 2017, 10:26:57 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)

Shoutbox
June 21, 2017, 05:50:35 pm Romans 8 says: Mark, I don't want to flood your pm box. But just wanted to say I emailed bro Scott about this issue.
April 29, 2017, 05:20:18 am Christian40 says: What i'm thinking a strike on North Korea possible on some occultic date May 1? the aftermath of WW3 will bring in the Antichrist? Yeah Mayhem in May?
April 20, 2017, 04:55:44 pm Mark says:
April 06, 2017, 09:26:29 pm Mark says: TRUMP LAUNCHES 50+ MISSILES AIMED AT SYRIA
March 05, 2017, 01:16:17 am Christian40 says: i hope the rapture is this year i encourage You to keep working for the Lord
March 05, 2017, 01:06:24 am Christian40 says: i'm glad that the summer is over in Australia the heat was making me feel crazy its a good month to be in now
February 19, 2017, 07:55:44 am Romans 8 says: The month of February just FLIES BY, doesn't it? It being a < 30 day month helps too! (Unusually warm this month too!)
January 24, 2017, 09:38:51 pm Romans 8 says:
January 16, 2017, 07:17:24 pm Romans 8 says:
October 24, 2016, 03:38:23 am Christian40 says: i'm here again i get bonus time on the Net today Smiley
View Shout History
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)  (Read 11015 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« 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

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 05:30:19 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8

Social Buttons

Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #1 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*
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20784



View Profile
« Reply #2 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...
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #3 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)
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #4 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)

Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #5 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #6 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)
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #7 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
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #8 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
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #9 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.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 07:08:17 pm by Mark » Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #10 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
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #11 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #12 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #13 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?

Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #14 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #15 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.
 .
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #16 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)
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #18 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #19 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.”
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 11:34:36 am by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #20 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.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 11:36:11 am by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #21 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #22 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)
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #23 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #24 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #25 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)
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #26 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! Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #27 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #28 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
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 8
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 27148


View Profile
« Reply #29 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.”
« Last Edit: March 02, 2013, 08:21:48 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines