National Organization for Marriage

(Difference between revisions)

The National Organization for Marriage is against redefining marriage and in favor of marriage as "the union of husband and wife". They believe this will protect the institution of marriage. The organisation's leader, Brian S. Brown, strongly opposed the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling on DOMA.[1]

? Brian S. Brown response to DOMA ruling

View the original article here

Ben Carson Finally Apologizes For Comparing Same-Sex Marriage To Pedophilia

A week and a half after Dr. Ben Carson outraged the LGBT community by linking same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality in a nationally televised interview on Fox News, the Johns Hopkins brain surgeon is finally apologizing for his hateful remarks.

Carson had already tried to walk back his comments and extinguish a few fires late last week during an appearance on MSNBC, but he didn’t issue much in the way of an apology. This time though, in an email sent to the Johns Hopkins community, he sounded sincere:

In a Friday email to the Hopkins community – which a source shared with POLITICO – Carson apologized for having caused “any embarrassment” to the institutions he has been affiliated with.

“As you know, I have been in the national news quite a bit recently and my 36 year association with Johns Hopkins has unfortunately dragged our institution into the spotlight as well. I am sorry for any embarrassment this has caused,” wrote Carson, who is the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. “But what really saddens me is that my poorly chosen words caused pain for some members of our community and for that I offer a most sincere and heartfelt apology. Hurting others is diametrically opposed to who I am and what I believe.”

A majority of students in the 2013 graduating class at Johns Hopkins’ School of Medicine signed a petition calling on the administration to replace Carson as this year’s commencement speaker, but a report yesterday suggested that university officials were still planning invite him. Faculty and staff at JHU also condemned Carson’s remarks in the days following his appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program.

View the original article here

Reagan’s Son: Churches Should Condemn Same-Sex Marriage Just Like Polygamy, Bestiality, And Murder

President Ronald Reagan’s negligence during the AIDS crisis combined with his empowering of social conservatives in the religious right make him pretty unpopular among the LGBT community, but even he opposed California’s Briggs Initiative, a proposed law to ban gays and lesbians from being teachers. His son Ron Reagan, Jr. has in turn been an outspoken supporter of gay rights, but it seems his son Michael has taken to being even more conservative than his father.

In a op-ed today in Ohio’s Ironton Tribune, Michael Reagan excoriates the “Protestants, Jews, and Catholics” for not expressing enough “moral outrage” about same-sex marriage. Churches, he believes, should start “fighting for America” to protect it from the “serious threat” marriage equality presents:

This fight over Proposition 8 isn’t just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.

It’s ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage.

There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.

Perhaps more social conservatives should start claiming that same-sex marriage will lead to legalized murder. With arguments that absurd and offensive, they might lose the fight against equality even more quickly. (HT: Jeremy Hooper.)

View the original article here

Working Majority Of United States Senate Now Supports Marriage Equality

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) has endorsed marriage equality, making him the second Republican in the Senate to do so. With Vice President Joe Biden the tie-breaker, this marks the first time that a majority in the U.S. Senate has endorsed same-sex marriage.

Kirk posted on his blog Tuesday: “When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others. Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this Earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back– government has no place in the middle.”

Though Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that week that “political leaders are falling all over themselves” to support marriage equality, Kirk and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) are the only sitting Senate Republicans to date who have done so. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said last week she is “evolving” on the issue.

With Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE)’s endorsement earlier Tuesday, 48 members of Senate Democratic caucus have announced their support for marriage equality.

Meet the 50 Senators who support marriage equality:

View the original article here

Kirk becomes second Republican senator to support gay marriage

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) announced his support for same-sex marriage on Tuesday, becoming the second sitting GOP senator to do so.

"Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage," Kirk said in a statement on his blog.

"Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most," continued Kirk, who returned to the Senate earlier this year after a lengthy absence to recover from a stroke. "Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle."

Kirk's statement came the same morning that Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) also announced that he supports same-sex marriage.

Kirk joins Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who switched positions in March, as the only sitting Republican senators to support gay marriage.

Last week, the Supreme Court held hearings on challenges to California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The legal challenges brought a flood of high-profile Democratic senators, including many from swing states or traditionally GOP strongholds, publicly supporting gay marriage.

Besides Carper, seven other Senate Democrats have endorsed same-sex marriage in recent weeks: Sens. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), Mark Warner (Va.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Mark Begich (Alaska), and Jon Tester (Mont.).

Polls also show growing acceptance among the public of gay marriage, leading many in the GOP to adopt a softer stance.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) last week said her position on the issue was "evolving." And fellow Republican Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) said that while he supported traditional marriage, he believed it "inevitable" that a 2016 GOP presidential contender could openly support gay marriage.

View Comments

View the original article here

Rising GOP star Carson defends comments on same-sex marriage

Dr. Ben Carson on Friday defended comments he made earlier this week that linked homosexuality to bestiality. 

Carson, a rising GOP star who came to fame in conservative circles with remarks critical of President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, said in an interview on MSNBC that his comments had been taken out of context. 

"I think what was said on Sean Hannity's show, that was taken completely out of context and completely misunderstood in terms of what I was trying to say," Carson said. "As a Christian I have a duty to love all people and that includes people that have other sexual orientations, and I certainly do."

Carson added that he hadn't meant to equate same-sex marriage to bestiality. 

"I wasn't equating those things, I don't think that they're equal," Carson said. 

But the pediatric neurosurgeon maintained his opposition for gay marriage. 

"My impression is what's being asked for is the convenience of the title 'marriage,' which is an institution that was established by God, and I'm not sure that that is the same thing" as letting same-sex couples have the same federal rights as heterosexual couples," Carson said. "Everybody has right of association and if we don't give them the right to transfer property and have visitation et cetera, then we really should be examining that."

During an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show on Tuesday, Carson, a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University, argued that marriage is "a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition." 

NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association. 

Carson on Friday said his opposition to same-sex marriage was not based on antagonism toward gays, but on Biblical beliefs. 

"And when I say we don't want to change it or degrade it by calling it marriage that's not aimed at any particular group," he said of gay marriage. The Bible and God "have set very specific standards," Carson said. "It's very clear what's being said. God doesn't change, man changes."

Carson's comments on Hannity's radio show resulted in an effort by some Johns Hopkins students to replace Carson as the 2013 commencement speaker. Carson suggested he would not be the speaker if that's what the students wanted.

"I would say that this is their day and the last thing I want to do is rain on their parade," Carson said. "I am waiting for appropriate channels."

View Comments

View the original article here

Obama reelection chief: GOP’s 2016 nominee won’t back gay marriage

Jim Messina, the campaign manager of President Obama's successful reelection bid, told Businessweek in an interview published Friday that he does not believe the next Republican nominee will support same-sex marriage.

"Given who their primary electorate is and given the fact that the ABC/Washington Post poll showed that 60 percent of older Republican primary voters still oppose it," Messina told the magazine, "I think you will see people talk less about it. But I don't think they're showing any signs of moderating."

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a pair of cases examining the constitutional implications of laws restricting same-sex marriages and benefits earlier this week. Gay rights activists are hoping that the court could issue a broad ruling that would legalize same-sex marriage across the country.

A number of legislators, including Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), came out in support of same-sex marriage ahead of the Supreme Court arguments. But Portman, who has a gay son, remains the only Republican in the Senate who backs gay marriage. Other top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, including Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have recently voiced their opposition to allowing gays to wed. The Republican opposition comes despite an apparent shift in national attitudes on the subject. A CBS News poll released earlier this week showed that 53 percent of all Americans believe it should be legal for same-sex couples to wed, although 56 percent of Republicans do not support allowing gay couples to do so. Still, GOP support has risen 13 percentage points since May 2012, when President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage.

View Comments

View the original article here

Top Conservative Says Marriage Equality Will Lead To Influx Of Immigrant Polygamists

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins compared same-sex marriage to polygamy just minutes after the Supreme Court finished hearing a constitutional challenge to a law that denies equal federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law.

Appearing on MSNBC, Perkins — whose organization is labeled as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center — argued that if the court strikes down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, immigrants would be able to bring multiple spouses into the country:

PERKINS: As you set up this package interview, people ought to be able to marry who they love. If love becomes a definition of what the boundaries of marriage are, how do we define that going forward? What if someone wants to immigrate to this country from a country that allows multiple spouses? Right now they can’t immigrate with the spouses, but if the parameter are simply love, how do we prohibit them from coming into this country? If it’s all about just love, as it’s being used, where do we set the lines?

Watch it:

Asked to defend the comparison by reporter Luke Russert, Perkins explained that he was not likening gay people to polygamists, but only warning about a slippery slope.

View the original article here

Bronx Borough President, Son Of Homophobic Senator, Comes Out For Marriage Equality

While New York State Sen. Rubén Díaz (D) was leading the anti-marriage equality march on the National Mall yesterday, his son, Bronx Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. (D), was probably penning the final words for his statement endorsing marriage equality.

On Wednesday, the junior Díaz released a long and personal statement announcing his support for same-sex marriage, which has been the national focus this week as the Supreme Court debates the constitutionality of both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8:

“My decision, which comes after years of thought and reflection on the issue, is informed by the experiences I have had with close friends, family and loved ones.

“For example, my chief-of-staff, Paul Del Duca, has for decades worked to help the people of this City. He has helped people find housing and jobs, he has dedicated his professional life to assisting those in need. Why, then, should he and his partner Damion—whose wedding I stood witness to—be denied the same rights of any other loving and committed couple? Moreover, why should my niece, Erica Diaz, be denied the ability to get married when her time comes?

“When marriage equality was made legal in 2011, many opponents predicted that it would have negative consequences. That has certainly not been the case. It is my contention that our city and our state are better off than they were before marriage equality became the law. Not only has our city seen an incredible financial impact from marriage equality, the quality of life for myself, my family and my friends has not suffered one bit.”

Díaz, Jr.’s statement stands in stark contrast to the comments from his father, who has vowed to lead a “war” on same-sex marriages, and has embraced the support of a woman who declared homosexuality more threatening than terrorism and a minister who said gays are worthy of death.

This won’t be the first Díaz family rift. The senior Díaz has continued to disparage marriage equality, even as he acknowledges that he has a gay brother and nephew, and a lesbian granddaughter who has openly condemned him. Still, the State Sen. insists, “We have a very loving family… I love them. They love me. We help each other.”

View the original article here

5 Social Conservatives Threatening To Leave The GOP Over Marriage Equality

Shortly before the US Supreme Court heard arguments to strike down restrictions on same-sex marriage, the Republican National Committee outraged hardline conservatives with a report calling for greater flexibility on gay rights and immigration reform in order to lure young people into the Republican Party. GOP strategist Karl Rove piled on the insult by speculating the Republican Party’s next presidential candidate could support marriage equality (though later walked it back). Evangelical leaders erupted in protest, threatening to abandon the GOP if the party were to change its increasingly unpopular stance.

The tide is changing rapidly against this so-called evangelical base of the GOP. Last week, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) became the first sitting Republican senator to declare his support for marriage equality. While a majority of all Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage, a new poll found that 49 percent of Republicans under 50 years old actually support extending the right to marry to same-sex couples.

Below are a few of the social conservatives the GOP would have to do without if they abandoned their opposition to same-sex marriage:

“They might [decide to support same-sex marriage], and if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk. And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of, but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard. If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture.” [3/20/2013]

“The vast majority of the GOP base believes that marriage is a non-negotiable plank of the national platform. Anything less, writes Byron York, ‘could come back to haunt the RNC in the not-too-distant future.’ [...] If the RNC abandons marriage, evangelicals will either sit the elections out completely – or move to create a third party. Either option puts Republicans on the path to a permanent minority. [3/19/2013]

“Shame on the politicians and the judges that are trying to undermine the institution of marriage. I’m a Republican…let me say to my party: if you bail out on this issue, I will leave the party and I will take as many people as I possibly can.” [3/26/2013]

Watch it:

“If worst case scenario the last week of June we come down with a bad decision, the church and people of faith and values need to rise up. We just simply cannot allow this to become the law of the land, it will fundamentally change who we are, it will fundamentally weaken the family and religious freedom will be in the crosshairs. [3/26/2013]

“If the party makes that [gay marriage] something official that they support, they’re not going to pull the homosexual activist voters away from the Democrat Party, but they are going to cause their base to stay home and throw their hands up in utter frustration…Whether they like it or not, the Republican Party’s base is sufficiently large that they cannot do without them and their problem is they don’t like them. It really isn’t any more complicated than that.” [3/18/2013]

The growing right-wing schism was on full display at CPAC earlier this month, when organizers disinvited the gay conservative group GOProud to appease anti-gay board members. The decision to exclude GOProud sparked protests among prominent conservative commentators worried about the GOP’s flailing outreach efforts to more socially liberal minorities like women and young people.

Still, evangelicals and social conservatives have little cause to worry. Though public opinion on gay rights is evolving rapidly, the Republican Party does not plan to change their stance on marriage equality anytime soon. The RNC’s report, while encouraging outreach to Latinos, blacks, women, and young people, notably excluded the gay community from the list. Rather than disavow exclusionary and discriminatory policies enshrined in their platform, the current GOP strategy is to sugarcoat their anti-gay rhetoric in hopes that young voters will overlook their true intentions.

View the original article here

Why The Supreme Court’s Rulings On Marriage Equality Have Nothing To Do With Roe v. Wade

As the Supreme Court takes up two landmark cases for marriage equality this week, the impending decisions have sparked comparisons to another one of the Court’s rulings on a so-called “social issue” — the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion rights exactly 40 years ago. Since a politically contentious battle over abortion rights has continued throughout the four decades after Roe, some pundits argue the Justices moved too quickly to grant legal rights to reproductive care, and a similar move toward marriage equality before the country is ready could incite the same kind of public backlash.

But the idea that Roe created the Religious Right — fueling public outrage over abortion that spurred religious conservatives to mobilize across the country — is actually a myth. As Sally Steenland, the Director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, explains, religious conservatives actually began organizing to prevent the IRS from revoking tax-exempt status from a Christian college that was practicing racial discrimination. Evangelicals didn’t welcome what they perceived as “government intrusion” into privately funded, faith-based institutions, and a movement began brewing. In fact, abortion wasn’t added to the Religious Right’s agenda until several years after Roe, when the movement’s leaders began seeking to expand their issues.

And it wasn’t necessarily political backlash from the Religious Right that began chipping away at reproductive rights in a post-Roe nation. In many cases, it was actually the Court itself. In 1980, Harris v. McRae upheld the Hyde Amendment, which bars low-income Americans in the Medicaid program from getting abortion services covered by public insurance. In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey narrowed Roe‘s broad abortion protections to a less rigid standard — specifying that states may restrict abortion as long as they don’t impose an “undue burden” on women seeking to terminate a pregnancy — which paved the way for today’s state-level restrictions, spanning everything from mandatory waiting periods to forced ultrasounds.

Even aside from the unfounded myths about the history of the United States’ abortion rights battles, there’s even more evidence to suggest that Americans won’t revolt if the Justices advance LGBT equality. Although abortion and gay marriage have been the two pillars of the Religious Right’s “values issues” for the past two decades, serving as political wedge issues that go hand-in-hand, that’s not necessarily the case anymore.

“As recently as 2004, we talked about abortion and same sex marriage in the same breath,” Daniel Cox, the Public Religion Research Institute’s research director, told the Washington Post. “They were the values issues. Now, it doesn’t make sense to lump them together anymore. We’ve seen a decoupling.” Cox explained that’s partly because of the increased visibility of LGBT people, and the personal connections with gay and lesbian people that are leading growing numbers of Americans to support pro-equality policies — the kind of public awareness that doesn’t necessarily exist for women who have abortions.

So, although support for legal abortion has remained fairly steady throughout the past three decades, without much of a discernible shift between different age groups, the support for gay marriage has recently soared to historic highs — particularly among young people. The nation didn’t actually erupt into a political firestorm directly as a result of the Court’s decision on abortion rights, and there’s no evidence to suggest that a ruling in favor of marriage equality will spark that response, either.

View the original article here

Corporate America Has Already Voted on Gay Marriage

(Read More: Corporate Call for Change in Gay Marriage Case)

The Human Rights Campaign has found far greater commitment among corporate leaders focused on their bottom lines than among politicians seeking votes.

In 29 states it remains legal to fire or not hire someone on the basis of sexual orientation.

But among the 688 major employers rated in its most recent survey, HRC found that 99 percent prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and 89 percent offer health benefits to domestic partners.

In addition, 65 percent have parity in "soft" benefits for spousal and domestic partners such as bereavement leave, employee assistance programs, employee discounts, and relocation assistance.

(Read More: Congrats, Same-Sex Newlyweds: Here's Your Tax Bill)

Among the 20 largest publicly-traded firms on the Fortune 500 list, 13 received a perfect 100 percent rating across a range of practices relating to gay rights. Those include: Chevron, General Motors, Bank of America, Ford, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T, JPMorgan Chase, Verizon, AIG, and IBM.

"The private sector was always ahead of the politicians," said Hilary Rosen, a Washington public relations consultant active in gay-rights causes.

Now the public opinion has shifted markedly—driven in large part by younger voters who don't even regard gay marriage as controversial—politicians are catching up.

(Read More: Gay Rights: Does Taking a Stand Affect Business?)

President Barack Obama embraced gay marriage in his 2012 re-election campaign. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, recently announced his support for gay marriage after learning his adult son is gay.

The dramatic increase in the number of gays and lesbians open about their sexuality has been a key element in the shifting dynamics of the issue. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, all signs suggest that both the public and American business will increasingly regard marriage rights as a settled issue.

—By CNBC's John Harwood; Follow him on Twitter: @JohnJHarwood

View the original article here

Senators Rockefeller And Begich Add Their Support For Marriage Equality

Two more Senators have expressed their full support for marriage equality, joining Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who endorsed the freedom to marry earlier this week.

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) issued a statement Monday night supporting same-sex couples’ rights to marry:

BEGICH: I believe that same sex couples should be able to marry and should have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other married couple. Government should keep out of individuals’ personal lives — if someone wants to marry someone they love, they should be able to. Alaskans are fed up with government intrusion into our private lives, our daily business, and in the way we manage our resources and economy.

Similarly, Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV) told ABC News that government should not discriminate against couples based on their sexual orientation:

ROCKEFELLER: Like so many of my generation, my views on allowing gay couples to marry have been challenged in recent years by a new, more open generation. Churches and ministers should never have to perform marriages that violate their religious beliefs, but the government shouldn’t discriminate against people who want to marry just because of their gender.

Younger people in West Virginia and even my own children have grown up in a much more equal society and they rightly push us to question old assumptions — to think deeply about what it means for all Americans to be created equal. This has been a process for me, but at this point I think it’s clear that DOMA is discriminatory. I’m against discrimination in all its forms, and I think we can move forward in our progress toward true equality by repealing DOMA.

Rockefeller joins 21 other Senators who originally voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and later opposed it.

View the original article here

The Justices Are Not Ready To Bring Marriage Equality To Alabama, And They Want Prop 8 To Go Away

WASHINGTON, DC — There are probably five justices who object to California’s anti-gay Proposition 8 and who would prefer to see it struck down. Justice Kennedy, the conservative viewed as most likely to provide the fifth vote for equality, openly pondered whether Prop 8 violates the Constitution’s ban on gender discrimination. Kennedy at one point admitted uncertainty about whether there is sufficient evidence examining the effect of marriage equality on society, but he then pivoted to note that the nearly 40,000 children raised by gay parents in California suffer “immediate legal injury” because of Prop 8. His vote is not entirely clear, but Kennedy leaned significantly in the direction of justice.

A weak performance by Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending discrimination, probably went a long way to push Kennedy into the pro-equality camp. When Justice Sotomayor asked Cooper to identify a single example outside of marriage where discrimination against gay couples could be “rational,” Cooper responded “I cannot,” prompting Sotomayor to note that Cooper had more or less conceded that gay people meet the definition of a class entitled to heightened protection under the Constitution. Under longstanding precedent, a group which has experienced a a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment‘ or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” enjoys enhanced protection under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Similarly, when Cooper argued that same-sex marriages could somehow undermine opposite-sex marriages, Kagan asked him to explain the “cause and effect” behind this point. When Cooper fumbled the question, Kennedy pounced, asking if Cooper was “conceding the point” that same-sex couples are not a threat to other people’s marriages. Cooper was left to meekly assert that it is “impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be.”

Yet the question of whether California’s same-sex couples enjoy the blessings of liberty was rapidly eclipsed by a different, unspoken question — whether gay couples in Alabama also enjoy those rights. Three justices, Roberts, Scalia and Alito asked hostile questions to the attorneys supporting equality and appear very unlikely to vote against Prop 8. Similarly, while Thomas was characteristically silent, no one expects him to break from his past, anti-equality opinions in gay rights cases. Of the remaining five, at least three spent much of the argument grasping for ways to limit the scope of a decision striking down Prop 8.

Sotomayor, at one point, asked pro-equality attorney Ted Olson whether the Court’s decision could be limited to just California. Kennedy worried about the “uncharted waters” facing the Court if it struck down marriage discrimination nationwide. Justice Ginsburg, who famously accused Roe v. Wade of moving “too far, too fast,” alluded to the fact that racial marriage discrimination ended in two stages — first the Court struck down bans on interracial cohabitation, then it struck down bans on interracial marriage. The clear implication was that the Court could be similarly incremental here.

Yet a means of killing Prop 8 without also ordering Alabama to comply with the Constitution escaped the justices. Kennedy was openly dismissive of the Ninth Circuit’s rationale for limiting its decision striking Prop 8 to California. When Solicitor General Don Verrilli called for the Court to upgrade civil union states into full marriage equality states but leave the Alabama question for another day, most of the bench was skeptical. Ginsburg wondered why only states that have made significant progress towards equality are required to go all in. Kagan questioned how the facts supporting marriage discrimination could be different in another state. When Justice Breyer asked Verrilli which arguments could possibly support marriage equality in California but not Alabama, Verrilli was only able to respond “caution.”

By the end of the argument, a majority of the Court seemed to believe that they shouldn’t even be hearing this case in the first place. At least five justices — Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan — at one point asked skeptical questions about whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, a result that would potentially raise difficult legal questions about whether Prop 8 is still the law in California or not. Justice Kennedy repeatedly asked about another possibility — the Court could dismiss the case as “improvidently granted” — essentially reversing the Court’s prior decision to hear the case and leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision to strike Prop 8 in effect. Sotomayor asked Cooper “[i]f the issue is letting the States experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?”

In other words, the most likely answer to the question of whether Prop 8 is unconstitutional is that the Supreme Court will not answer this question at all. Too many of the five justices who appeared open to marriage equality posed too many questions about whether now is the time to bring equality to the nation as a whole, and they did not appear satisfied with any of the theories offered to limit their decision to just some of the states.

View the original article here

Former Bush Official Slams Social Conservative Leader For Opposing Marriage Equality

Nicole Wallace, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, called out social conservative leader Gary Bauer for his outdated opposition to marriage equality during a discussion on Fox News Sunday about the Supreme Court’s upcoming hearings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.

In a contentious segment, Bauer described the effort to legalize same-sex marriage as a “radical movement” that is “trying to redefine marriage so it is a profoundly unconservative thing.” He accused supporters of marriage equality of being brainwashed by a “full-court blitz by the popular culture” and the “elites,” who, he charged, “intimidate” and “cower people into no longer defending marriage as being between a man and a woman.”

Wallace pushed back against the claims, noting that a growing number of conservatives have evolved in favor of equality and predicting that the Court will come down “on the side of freedom” when it hands down its ruling in June:

WALLACE: Chris, Chris, the biggest problem that Mr. Bauer faces, not just this morning but moving forward is that more than 65% of his own base, self-describing Evangelical Christians, under the age of 33, support marriage equality. 80% of people in this country, right, left, Democrat, Republican, man, woman, support marriage equality. More than 60% of all Americans, everyone, supports marriage equality. And that very some activist court that he railed against, with such hostility this morning always sides on the side of freedom. They are the same court that overturned gun bans, for overreaching. They’re the very same court that overturned campaign finance reform for overreaching, so we can despise the courts for its activism when we don’t like their behavior, but we can’t say that this is a court that always sides on the side of liberals.

Watch it:

Indeed, a Washington Post poll released on Monday found that 58 percent of Americans now believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married, including 81 percent of young people, and 52 percent of Republican-leaning Independents. More conservatives, Evangelicals, Republicans, and senior citizens support marriage than did nine years ago.

View the original article here

WATCH: The Most Compelling Case For Marriage Equality In Under A Minute

California Attorney General Kemala Harris gave an impassioned, pithy defense of marriage equality during an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday morning in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s hearing on whether California’s Proposition 8, which overturned the state’s marriage equality law, is itself constitutional.

Asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley to explain why she was refusing to defend the state’s proposition, Harris insisted that the measure undermined the fundamental rights of gay Americans, taking away their equal protections under the law:

I am absolutely against a ban on same-sex marriages because [bans] are simply unconstitutional. And it is one thing to read the polls, which we have discussed which show again that a majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage, but it is more important to read the Constitution. And the Constitution of the United States dictates, I believe, under every court precedent that we have discussed in terms of describing marriage as a fundamental right that the same-sex couples that are before the United states supreme court — Mrs. Windsor, Miss Perry — be allowed to have equal protection under the laws as any Americans when it comes to their ability to join themselves with their loving partners in marriage and raise their children. And 61% of Californians are in favor of same-sex marriage.

Watch it (Harris’ central case is from :18 to 1:10):

When asked afterwards by Crowley why Californians voted in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage, Harris points out that, in 2013, 61 percent of Californians support equality. But, more importantly, she argued that there were 50,000 children in California “who are asking: why can’t my parents be married too?”

View the original article here

Conservative Pundit Says Country Shouldn’t Move Too Fast In Granting Equal Marriage Rights To Gays

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan said this morning that a Supreme Court decision leaving the states to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage was in the best interest of Americans, because it would ensure that the country didn’t move too fast in granting equal marriage rights to all of its citizens.

Noonan said on ABC’s This Week that Americans “don’t take it well” when the Supreme Court makes decisions that affect the entire country — such as declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act — and said one of the “great sins” of Roe v. Wade was that it took power away from the states:

NOONAN: Oh, George Will said something here a few weeks ago, he said, look, opposition is literally dying out — it is the older Americans, not the younger Americans. One of the things that I like by the way about a compromise in which state by state does it, it’s not only about localities and keeping power local — it also takes a little time. Sometimes it’s good when everything takes a little time to settle itself out. May I note, by the way, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a famous court liberal, her acknowledging very recently, in the “Times” today, that the Roe v. Wade decision, the abortion decision, had gone too far and was an overreach, that is an epic statement.

Noonan’s reference to Ruth Bader Ginsburg came from a speech the Supreme Court justice gave at Columbia Law school last year, in which she said Roe v. Wade went “too far, too fast.” But Noonan’s appeal to let the issue take time to “settle itself out” ignores the fact that activists have been fighting for marriage equality for nearly 40 years. And her insinuation that Americans won’t like it if the Court declares a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional ignores that support for marriage equality is at an all time high: a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage rights, up from 37 percent in 2003. That 58 percent includes 81 percent of youth, which lends credibility to Noonan’s insight that opposition to marriage equality is dying out.

View the original article here

Same-sex marriage: From hot-button issue to litmus test

By A.B. Stoddard, columnist, The Hill - 03/22/13 11:23 AM ET

This was an historic week in U.S. political history. No Democrat can now seriously run for president, and survive a primary, without supporting gay marriage. Why? Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a conservative Republican, came out in favor of same-sex marriage, followed immediately by a video announcement from Hillary Clinton (why wait for an interview?) declaring her support for the same. Then an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday showed that an all-time high of 58 percent of the country now supports same-sex marriage, up an astonishing 26 percent in just nine years.

The issue is now a litmus test in Democratic presidential politics, the exact opposite from 2008, the last open election, when no Democrat seeking the Oval Office would dare sanction marriage for anyone but one man and one woman for fear of tainting themselves for the general election. On this issue, most of the general election will now be behind them. Not so for Republicans, who would struggle in a GOP presidential primary among evangelical Christians who have enormous influence in the primary process. Their support may be an insurmountable hurdle. David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network questioned this week whether the GOP would lose evangelicals by remaining silent on the issue of gay marriage.

Clinton's announcement was clearly on its way, with her husband less than subtly laying the groundwork two weeks ago with his declaration of regret over signing the Defense of Marriage Act. After all, two gay-marriage cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court next week, and Clinton thought it the perfect time to announce her support in advance. But there's a pretty good chance she rushed out her video as soon as Portman's surprise announcement just days before. No matter what, it means Clinton doesn't want the 2016 presidential speculation to leave her out.

Just sayin'.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN IS NOW URGING A GRAND BARGAIN WITH NEW REVENUE? IS THERE HOPE? AskAB returns Tuesday, April 2 after a cold spring break. Please join my weekly video Q&A by sending your questions and comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Thank you.

View Comments

View the original article here

POLLS: Reuters And CNN Confirm Momentum For Marriage Equality

Earlier this week, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found one of the highest levels of support for marriage equality, with 58 percent of voters endorsing same-sex marriage. Two more polls this week have found similar — though not quite as high — results.

A CNN/ORC International poll found that 53 percent support same-sex marriage with 44 percent opposed, a slight dip from last May’s 54-42 result in the wake of President Obama’s endorsement. As other polls have found, young people (71 percent for those 18-34), women (56 percent vs. 49 percent of men), and those who attended college (59 percent vs. 44 percent of those who didn’t) are more likely to support equality. Both Democrats (70 percent) and Independents (55 percent) side with equality more than average.

Similarly, a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted between January 1 and March 14 found similar results, though it fell into the trap of asking about civil unions without forcing respondents to choose between same-sex marriage and nothing. As a result, it found 63 percent support marriage or civil unions, with 41 percent favoring full marriage equality. Only a quarter of respondents opposed any form of relationship recognition, though opposition was stronger in regions like the South and lowest in the Northeast. The poll does note that support for marriage is surpassing support for civil unions.

Whatever arguments the Supreme Court considers next week, any claim the opponents of marriage equality make about having a majority of Americans on their side would be an outright lie.

View the original article here

House Republicans’ Final Written Argument Against Marriage Equality: Nuh-Uh!

House Republicans' Attorney Paul Clement

House Republicans have filed a reply brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, but the arguments boil down to “nuh-uh” or “just because” responses to Edie Windsor’s attorneys. Though it reiterates many of the arguments made in their initial brief, here’s a summary of the final written arguments against marriage equality in the DOMA case:

Same-sex marriage is still an “experiment,” so Congress was allowed to be cautious: “But when Hawaii was poised to become the first jurisdiction in the United States to deviate from the traditional definition, there was nothing incautious about retaining the traditional definition as the federal definition while states began a process of experimentation. That approach was a rational exercise in caution and a rational approach to the issue given our system of dual sovereignty.”It’s more “uniform” to ban all same-sex marriages than to recognize all valid marriages: “But the federal sovereign has a unique interest in treating a survivor of a same-sex relationship in New York the same as a survivor of a same-sex relationship in Oklahoma. And DOMA rationally furthers that uniquely federal interest in nationwide uniformity.”Most states ban same-sex marriage, so it’s rational that Congress did it too: “It bears emphasis that the traditional definition was the only definition at the time of DOMA’s enactment and remains the rule in more than 80% of the jurisdictions.”Children are better off with their biological parents: “DOMA’s opponents challenge as irrational the long-held cultural judgment that a child’s biological parents are, other things being equal, the child’s natural and most suitable guardians.”Only straight couples need marriage because only they have kids accidentally: “Marriage as an institution is linked to the unique tendency of opposite-sex couples to produce unintended offspring and the societal interest in providing a stable structure for raising such children.”DOMA doesn’t deny marital eligibility to same-sex couples: “DOMA defines terms for purposes of federal law; it does not deny marital eligibility— which remains a matter of state law—to anyone.”Gays aren’t politically powerless like women because women were discriminated against under the law: “The Court’s application of heightened scrutiny, despite the majority status and substantial achievements of women, was explained instead by over a century of official disenfranchisement that left the statute books littered with laws based on outdated stereotypes.”Sexual orientation is a behavior, not an identity: “Unlike the recognized suspect classes, sexual orientation is defined by a tendency to engage in a particular kind of conduct.”Let democracy play out on same-sex marriage so opponents aren’t called bigots: “The democratic process requires opposing sides to attempt to persuade each other, to understand each other’s positions, and perhaps, at least temporarily, to reach compromises that both sides can accept. A constitutional right to same-sex marriage, on the other hand, could be achieved only by marginalizing, as bigoted at worst or irrational at best, the ‘profound and deep convictions’ of those who disagree.”

Some of these arguments are simply rhetorical speculation (“experiment,” “uniform”), others are completely untrue (DOMA rejects states that recognize same-sex marriages, gays do have a history of disenfranchisement under the law), and others defy the lived experiences of gays and lesbians and their families (children who are adopted, sexual orientation as an identity). None of them reflect reality, and none of them should survive the scrutiny of the Court’s questions next week.

(HT: Kathleen Perrin.)

View the original article here