Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn marriage. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn marriage. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

For Minnesota gay marriage sponsors, it's personal

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — As a crowd of thousands roared from the lawn of the state Capitol, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton signed the bill Tuesday that makes gay marriage legal here come Aug. 1.

"What a day for Minnesota!" the Democratic governor declared, as American and rainbow flags flapped in a sweltering hot wind. The Minnesota State Patrol estimated about 6,000 people made up the massive crowd, and many headed to downtown St. Paul afterward for a street party celebrating the bill's passage.

Dayton's signature on the bill ended an intense two years for gay marriage supporters and opponents in this Midwestern state, which swung from a failed push to constitutionally ban same-sex weddings into a successful bid to becoming the 12th state to affirm them.

Watching over Dayton's shoulder as he signed the bill were the measure's two chief sponsors, Rep. Karen Clark and Sen. Scott Dibble. For them, it was vindication for a long and sometimes demoralizing struggle for gay rights.

"I thought it would happen someday, but I didn't know I would be able to be here to be part of it," Clark said Tuesday, a few hours before the ceremony. Clark can now marry her partner of 24 years, in the only state she's ever lived.

The longest-serving openly gay lawmaker in the country, Clark, 67, had already been out of the closet for a decade when she was elected to the Legislature in 1980. She grew up on a farm in Rock County, in the state's southwestern corner, and came out to her parents, now both dead, in her mid-20s.

"The very first thing my mother said was, 'I will always love you,'" Clark recalled.

In 1993, her by-then elderly parents marched with her in the Minneapolis gay pride parade a few weeks after she led the effort to extend Minnesota's civil rights protections to gay people.

But by 1997, the same Legislature passed the "Defense of Marriage Act," which restricted marriage to only opposite-sex couples. A year later, Clark introduced a bill to repeal it and allow gay marriage.

It took 16 years to get to this week, which comes two years after the 2011 Legislature — then controlled by Republicans — put an amendment on the statewide ballot asking voters to cement the existing gay marriage ban in the state constitution. Minnesota became the first state to reject such a ban after more were passed in more than 30 states, and is now the first state in the Midwest to approve gay marriage by a legislative vote.

"It was hard because it was very personal," Dibble said of the 2011 vote to put the amendment on the ballot. "People whom I had counted as very, very good friends voted for it."

Dibble, 47, graduated from high school in the Minneapolis suburb of Apple Valley and came out in college. He cut his teeth politically in the late 1980s as a member of the Minnesota chapter of ACT UP, a gay civil rights group that engaged in civil disobedience out of anger toward government neglect of AIDS and HIV sufferers. He got an early chance to join the establishment from Clark, who tapped him to run one of her re-election campaigns.

"I pulled him from street politics," she said.

Dibble was elected to the Minnesota House in 2000, and to the state Senate in 2002. He holds the southwest Minneapolis seat once occupied by Allan Spear, who in 1974 became one of the very first U.S. elected officials to come out of the closet. At Tuesday's bill signing, Dibble took time to thank Spear, who died in 2008.

While Dibble's district includes many of Minneapolis' trendiest neighborhoods, Clark's just to the east is marked by public housing towers and large populations of new immigrants.

"She is a huge, huge voice for the poor and the disenfranchised and the dispossessed," Dibble said.

But Clark continued through her career to make a mark for gay rights: During former Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's 2006 State of the State speech, Clark stood up on the House floor and turned her back to the governor as he endorsed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Not long after that, the first stirrings of legal same-sex marriage started to surface around the country. In 2008, Dibble and his husband, Richard Levya, were married in California, where Levya is still a part-time resident. While a judge later struck down gay marriage in that state, marriages that already occurred were not nullified.

Levya stood next to Dibble on Tuesday as Dayton signed the bill. Dibble said they won't remarry in Minnesota, but will have an affirming ceremony.

Clark and her partner Jacquelyn Zita, who also was at the bill signing, plan to make their marriage official in Minnesota. They haven't picked a date, but Clark envisioned a wedding on the farm they own north of Minneapolis.

"It will be small, probably just friends and family," Clark said. "We're actually very private people."

___

Follow Patrick Condon on Twitter at http://twitter.com/pcondonap .


View the original article here

Minnesota to legalize gay marriage

Minnesota senators approved a gay marriage law on Monday, making the Midwestern state the 12th in the union to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Gov. Mark Dayton is expected to sign the bill into law on Tuesday.

Just last week, Delaware lawmakers voted to allow gay marriage in the state. Rhode Island also passed a same-sex marriage law last month. Gay rights advocates point to California, Illinois, Oregon and New Jersey as the next states that might join the wave of gay marriage legalization.

More than 35 states ban same-sex marriage either through voter-passed amendments to their constitutions or laws. Public opinion has rapidly shifted on the issue, with a slight majority of Americans now saying they support it in polls.


View the original article here

Minnesota to legalize gay marriage

Minnesota senators approved a gay marriage law on Monday, making the Midwestern state the 12th in the union to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Gov. Mark Dayton is expected to sign the bill into law on Tuesday.

Just last week, Delaware lawmakers voted to allow gay marriage in the state. Rhode Island also passed a same-sex marriage law last month. Gay rights advocates point to California, Illinois, Oregon and New Jersey as the next states that might join the wave of gay marriage legalization.

More than 35 states ban same-sex marriage either through voter-passed amendments to their constitutions or laws. Public opinion has rapidly shifted on the issue, with a slight majority of Americans now saying they support it in polls.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 5, 2013

State senator comes out during gay marriage debate

State Senator Karen Peterson (photo: state of Delaware)State Senator Karen Peterson (photo: state of Delaware)

Delaware State Senator Karen Peterson came out as lesbian during the floor speeches of a debate about legalizing gay marriage, multiple outlets reported.

Sen. Peterson said, "If my happiness somehow demeans or diminishes your marriage, you need to work on your marriage," according to Think Progress.

Via Think Progress:

No one chose to be gay. We are what God made us. We don’t need to be fixed. We aren’t broken. [...] My partner Vicki and I have been together for 24 years. Last year, we entered into a civil union. [...] If my happiness somehow demeans or diminishes your marriage, you need to work on your marriage.

The Delaware Senate voted to approve marriage equality legislation, making Delaware the 11th state the recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples. Governor Jack Markell has said he will sign the bill into law.

Victory Fund broke the news about Sen. Peterson via Twitter:

Reactions were positive as others learned of the news via the social network.

A similar incident occurred earlier this year, when, during a debate on gay marriage, Nevada state Senator Kelvin Atkinson announced that was gay.

Last week, Rhode Island became the 10th state to legalize gay marriage.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 3 tháng 5, 2013

Rhode Island lawmakers pass gay marriage bill; governor signs it

By Edith Honan

(Reuters) - Rhode Island lawmakers gave final approval to a bill to legalize gay marriage on Thursday, making it the 10th U.S. state to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples and the last of the six New England states to do so.

Governor Lincoln Chafee, an independent, signed the bill into law almost immediately after the vote on Thursday. The new law will take effect on August 1.

"We would not be where we are today without the Rhode Islanders who for decades have fought for tolerance and freedom over discrimination and division," Chafee said. "I am proud to say that now, at long last, you are free to marry the person you love."

The governor later joined the state's main gay rights organization, Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, at a victory party in the state capital Providence.

Last week, the Democratic-led state Senate approved the measure with the support of the entire Republican caucus. The state House had approved a similar bill in January and on Thursday approved the Senate's amended bill.

Despite the victory, some in the state continued to voice strong opposition.

In an open letter, Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence said he was "profoundly disappointed" by the vote and encouraged Catholics to "examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies."

The vote marks the latest in a string of victories for gay marriage advocates. Last November, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state approved same-sex marriage, while in Minnesota, voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Before that point, advocates of same-sex marriage had never been successful at the ballot box, and voters in more than two dozen states had approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Lawmakers in Illinois, Delaware and Minnesota have joined Rhode Island in taking up same-sex marriage legislation this year. In Delaware, the bill has passed the state's lower house and is scheduled for a vote in the upper house on May 7.

New Jersey Democrats, meanwhile, have until next January to attempt to override Governor Chris Christie's veto of a same-sex marriage bill in that state.

The other six states that have legalized same-sex marriage are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa. The District of Columbia also has legalized same-sex marriage.

(Reporting by Edith Honan; Editing by Daniel Trotta, Richard Chang and Paul Simao)


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 28 tháng 4, 2013

Top GOP Donors Launch Push for Gay Marriage: ‘The Right Thing for the Country But Also Good Politics’

GOP Donors at American Unity PAC Donate Money to Supporting Gay MarriageAmerican Unity PAC

(Photo: American Unity PAC)

ST. PAUL, Minn. (TheBlaze/AP) -- In the wake of the 2012 election, many Republican strategists have concluded they simply cannot win as long as they seem so "polarizing."  One of the more contentious issues is gay marriage, with those on the left often accusing Republicans of being intolerant.  But now, a national group of prominent GOP donors is pouring new money into lobbying efforts to get Republican lawmakers to vote to make gay marriage legal.

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

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

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

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

GOP Donors at American Unity PAC Donate Money to Supporting Gay MarriageGay Marriage

Gay marriage supporters march at the US Supreme Court on March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

GOP Donors at American Unity PAC Donate Money to Supporting Gay MarriageGay Marriage

A pro Gay marriage protester called 'Queen' dances in front of the US Supreme Court on March 26, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think of the group's efforts?  Should the GOP be supporting gay marriage?  Or will it further alienate conservative voters?


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 11 tháng 4, 2013

The 6 ways senators say 'I now support gay marriage' (interactive)

Since Joe Biden blurted out his support for same-sex marriage nearly a year ago, 23 U.S. Senators have formally endorsed it in statements or interviews.

These "I now support same-sex marriage" statements have a certain mechanical poetry. The speaker is admitting that at some previous point, he or she did not. I think the penal implications of flip-flopping have been sufficiently lamented, but let's at least acknowledge the point: These are politicians going out of their way to emphasize that they have changed their minds.

Some go further than others. Claire McCaskill wrote a four-paragraph blog post that meditated on the difficulties of the decision and called on Corinthians for an assist. When South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson issued his reversal on Monday, he did so in 37 words that begin: "After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation."

It's easy to find common themes running through these messages. McCaskill, Kay Hagan, D-N.C., and Tom Carper, D-Del., all cite the influence of conversations with their families and friends. Hagan and a few others cite their religion.

I found six themes in reading through all the statements. They are as follows, with examples:

Love is all you need. See Tom Udall, D-N.M.:

"Two people, who are committed to one another, who love one another, should not be denied the fundamental right of marriage, or the legal rights that marriage includes."

Marriage is a civil right. See Biden:

"I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties."

I've evolved. See Mark Warner, D-Va.:

"Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone."

My faith supports it. See Hagan:

"But after much thought and prayer on my part, this is   where I am today."

It's right for Democracy. Udall again:

"Our Constitution enshrines the principle of equality – equal rights for all."

Some of my best friends… Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.:

"In talking with my children and grandchildren, it has become clear to me they take marriage equality as a given."

What follows is a list of every statement made since Biden's, including President Barack Obama's and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's, coded by which of the six major themes I found. This list does not include the 34 current senators who had already confirmed their support by the time Biden did, since they typically did so with less fanfare.

 

The "I've evolved" category is interesting not only because of the flip-flop implications. Many people are changing their minds on this subject, as pollsters discover again and again. It is not only the handful of Democratic senators who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act who seem to feel the need to emphasize that this is a phase shift. The implication, I think, is that—unlike war, health care, abortion, deficit reduction, tax hikes, a chained-CPI model of social security, Gitmo, immigration reform, assault weapon bans and climate change—unlike virtually everything else, gay marriage is one topic on which it's politically acceptable to change your mind.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 4, 2013

The 6 ways senators say 'I now support gay marriage' (interactive)

Since Joe Biden blurted out his support for same-sex marriage last May, 23 U.S. Senators have formally endorsed it in statements or interviews.

These "I now support same-sex marriage" statements have a certain mechanical poetry. The speaker is admitting that at some previous point, he or she did not. I think the penal implications of flip-flopping have been sufficiently lamented, but let's at least acknowledge the point: These are politicians going out of their way to emphasize that they have changed their minds.

Some go further than others. Claire McCaskill wrote a four-paragraph blog post that meditated on the difficulties of the decision and called on Corinthians for an assist. When South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson issued his reversal on Monday, he did so in 37 words that begin: "After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation."

It's easy to find common themes running through these messages. McCaskill, Kay Hagan, D-N.C., and Tom Carper, D-Del., all cite the influence of conversations with their families and friends. Hagan and a few others cite their religion.

I found six themes in reading through all the statements. They are as follows, with examples:

Love is all you need. See Tom Udall, D-N.M.:

"Two people, who are committed to one another, who love one another, should not be denied the fundamental right of marriage, or the legal rights that marriage includes."

Marriage is a civil right. See Biden:

"I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties."

I've evolved. See Mark Warner, D-Va.:

"Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone."

My faith supports it. See Hagan:

"But after much thought and prayer on my part, this is   where I am today."

It's right for Democracy. Udall again:

"Our Constitution enshrines the principle of equality – equal rights for all."

Some of my best friends… Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):

"In talking with my children and grandchildren, it has become clear to me they take marriage equality as a given."

What follows is a list of every statement made since Biden's, including President Barack Obama's and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's, coded by which of the six major themes I found. This list does not include the 34 current senators who had already confirmed their support by the time Biden did, since they typically did so with less fanfare.

 

The "I've evolved" category is interesting not only because of the flip-flop implications. Many people are changing their minds on this subject, as pollsters discover again and again. It is not only those handful of Democratic senators who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act who seem to feel the need to emphasize that this is a phase shift. The implication, I think, is that—unlike war, health care, abortion, deficit reduction, tax hikes, a chained-CPI model of social security, Gitmo, immigration reform, assault weapon bans and climate change—unlike virtually everything else, gay marriage is one topic on which it's politically acceptable to change your mind.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 8 tháng 4, 2013

SD Sen. Johnson says he now supports gay marriage

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson, who announced his retirement last month, has reversed his position on gay marriage, saying Monday that he supports the legalization of same-sex unions.

The 66-year-old Democrat has said for years that he doesn't support gay marriage, and he voted for the 1996 federal law that defined marriage as the union of a man and woman and provided that a state did not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

"After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation," Johnson said in a written statement. "This position doesn't require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom."

His announcement leaves three Senate Democrats who have not come out in support of federal efforts to legalize gay marriage: Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Landrieu and Pryor are up for re-election next year in their Republican-leaning states.

Johnson's position announced Monday is at odds with state laws passed in 1996 and 2000 banning gay marriage and saying South Dakota would not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Voters passed a state constitutional amendment in 2006 saying only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid.

Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced March 26 that he would not seek re-election in 2014, partly because the effects of a life-threatening brain hemorrhage in 2006 had made speech and mobility difficult.

In 2005 and 2006, Johnson said he did not support gay marriage but also that he did not support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution introducing a specific ban. He also noted in January 2005 that he had voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act protecting state laws on marriage.

Former state Rep. Roger Hunt of Brandon, a Republican who was involved in state legislative efforts to ban gay marriage, said Johnson's support of a federal law legalizing gay marriage runs counter to the constitution's guarantee of states' rights.

"I think families are so important, a family between a man and a woman is so important," Hunt said.

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin issued a statement Monday praising Johnson's decision.

"Sen. Johnson has affirmed what a majority of Americans across the country believe — that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to marry," Griffin said.

Two Republican senators, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rob Portman of Ohio, have announced their support for gay marriage.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 4, 2013

Another Democratic Senator Flips on Gay Marriage

Another Senate Democrat has come out in support of same-sex marriage, which leaves six Senate Democratic holdouts who have yet to embrace marriage equality. Today, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., flipped and announced that he now supported same-sex marriage.

The senator made the announcement during an interview today with the Tampa Bay Times, saying, "It is generally accepted in American law and U.S. society today … that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that. The civil rights and responsibilities for one must pertain to all," he told the Tampa Bay Times.

Nelson later confirmed his switch to ABC News.

READ MORE: Majority of Senate Backs Same-Sex Marriage

This marks the ninth Senate Democrat since last week to reverse course and now embrace same-sex marriage. The six Senate Democrats who continue to oppose marriage equality in some way are are Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.

Two Republican senators have endorsed same-sex marriage: Rob Portman of Ohio and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

READ MORE: Republicans Predict Fraud, Bestiality if Gay Marriage is Legal

Also Read

View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 29 tháng 3, 2013

Hasty embrace for some lawmakers on gay marriage

WASHINGTON (AP) — As the Supreme Court considered two landmark cases on gay marriage this week, the flood of activity across the street in the Capitol was not lost on Chief Justice John Roberts.

"As far as I can tell, political leaders are falling all over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts told lawyers urging the court to rule that married gay couples should receive federal benefits.

Roberts was hardly exaggerating. In the span of two weeks, seven senators have announced support for gay marriage, despite representing moderate or Republican-leaning states where such a move long has been considered a major political risk. One by one they fell like dominos, declaring on Facebook or quietly issuing a statement to say that they, too, now support gay marriage.

Taken together, their proclamations reflected a profound change in the American political calculus: For the first time, elected officials from traditionally conservative states are starting to feel it's safer to back same-sex marriage than to be among the last to join the cause.

For some Democrats, like Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill and Montana Sen. Jon Tester, the reversal would have been almost unfathomable just a few months ago as they fought for re-election. The potential risks were even greater for other Democrats like North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan and Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, already top GOP targets when they face voters next year in states that President Barack Obama lost in November. It was less than a year ago that voters in Hagan's state approved a ban on gay marriage.

Those four Democrats and two others — Mark Warner of Virginia and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia — were swept up in a shifting tide that began to take shape last year, when Obama, in the heat of his re-election campaign, became the first sitting president to endorse gay marriage. Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential contender in the next presidential election, followed suit in mid-March.

As support among party leaders builds, rank-and-file Democrats appear wary of being perceived as hold-outs in what both parties are increasingly describing as a civil-rights issue.

"They're reflecting what they're seeing in the polls — except the most extreme of the Republican base," former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who supports gay marriage, said in an interview. "From a purely political perspective, if you want to be a leader of the future, you look at the next generation. They are overwhelmingly in favor of this."

Reince Priebus, the national chairman of the Republican Party, cautioned in a USA Today interview that the GOP should not "act like Old Testament heretics."

Among Republicans, whose party platform opposes gay marriage, the shift in position has mostly been limited to former lawmakers and prominent strategists. Still, a distinct change in tone was palpable this month when Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a whom presidential candidate Mitt Romney vetted last year as a potential running mate, declared his support, citing a personal conversion stemming from his son coming out to him as gay.

Rather than blast Portman for flouting party dogma or failing an ideological litmus test, Republican leaders shrugged, indicating that even if Republicans, as a party, aren't prepared to back gay marriage, they won't hold it against those in their ranks who do.

In the Republican-controlled House, where most members come from districts heavily skewed to one party or the other, GOP leaders are not wavering publicly from their staunch opposition. When the Obama administration stopped defending in court the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars legally married gay couples from receiving federal benefits, it was House Republicans who took up the mantle. Democrats said Thursday that Republicans have spent as much as $3 million in taxpayer funds to defend the law, now being challenged at the Supreme Court.

"It's like immigration. The party realizes they are on the losing side of some of these issues," said former Rep. Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican. Kolbe came out as gay in 1996 while in office and will mark another milestone in May when he and his longtime partner marry in Washington.

"They want to make the shift, but you have got to do it in a politic and strategic way," Kolbe said. "It's a matter of how and when you take down one flag and run up the other."

Kolbe and Whitman joined dozens of other prominent Republicans in signing a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down the law barring federal recognition of gay marriages. But with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, still defending the law and social conservative groups vowing payback for those who abandon it, prospects are slim that Congress will move any time soon to repeal it on its own.

"It's sort of a bandwagon effect among the cultural elite," said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, which opposes gay marriage. "Some of these politicians who have changed their position, those who live in more conservative states, may pay for that shift with a defeat in their next election."

If public opinion continues to move in the direction it has been for the past 15 years, what's true for the next election may not be true just a few years down the line — even for Republicans.

When Gallup first asked in polls about gay marriages, in 1996, just 27 percent felt they should be valid. That figure climbed to 44 percent two years ago, and reached a majority by November, when 53 percent said gay marriages should be recognized. Among independents, a key barometer for politicians, support has jumped 23 points to 55 percent, including a six-point gain since 2010.

Even among Republicans, support has grown by 14 percentage points since 1996, although there's been no significant movement among Republicans since 2010, when 28 percent backed legal marriage.

"A lot of Republicans have come to the conclusion we can't live one life in private but advocate another life in public," said Republican strategist Alex Castellanos. "We all know families who are loving parents of the same gender who are raising great kids."

___

AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

___

Follow Josh Lederman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP


View the original article here

How the Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage: A prediction

One opinion from John Roberts. One opinion from Anthony Kennedy. And crucial questions left unanswered

It's always a dangerous task predicting the outcome of a Supreme Court case. But in the spirit of March Madness — why not? Below, find out how the Supreme Court will decide its gay marriage cases, before the justices even write the opinions:

Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Prop 8 case): 
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four liberal members of the court, will dismiss the case. Specifically, the Chief Justice will rule that the proponents of Proposition 8 do not have standing to challenge the District Court's ruling, because the decision allowing gay marriage did not cause them an "injury in fact."

SEE MORE: Bully pulpit: Can Obama save gun legislation?

Indeed, throughout Tuesday's oral arguments, the Chief Justice appeared almost uninterested in what the lawyers had to say about the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a popular referendum that banned gay marriage in California. Not only did the Chief Justice force the lawyers from both sides to begin with the standing issue, he also forced the government to give it's view of standing despite the fact that, well, it didn't have one. But not even that was enough to divert the Chief's focus, and sure enough, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli did as he was instructed and more or less made up the government's position on the fly.

Virtually everyone else, including the Chief Justice's fellow conservatives, appeared uninterested in Roberts' desire to toss the case on procedural grounds. Both Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito openly expressed concerns that refusing to grant standing would create a state of affairs whereby a state executive branch could override ballot initiatives they disagree with by refusing to defend them in court. The other justices, both liberal and conservative, appeared eager to tackle the merits (mind you, Justice Clarence Thomas did not speak, but history suggests he is not one to dodge tough questions on procedural grounds).

SEE MORE: WATCH: The 16 funniest Game of Thrones parodies [Updated]

Which brings us, inevitably, to Justice Kennedy. As the author of Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down state laws banning sodomy), and a lover of the spotlight, would he not be primed to join the liberal justices and vindicate the rights of gay Americans once more? No, probably not. Contrary to popular belief, Justice Kennedy is not a "moderate." Rather, as Jeff Toobin once put it, Kennedy is better described as an "extremist of varied enthusiasms." One of his enthusiasms is federalism, or the right of the states to govern. While Kennedy did author Lawrence, his comments at Wednesday's oral arguments make clear that he believes that federalism concerns are very much wrapped up in the marriage equality debate. As such, he is unlikely to side with the liberals and strike down Prop 8 as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

With Kennedy on team federalism (read: team conservative), that leaves the court divided on the merits, with one vote, Roberts, in the middle. Roberts probably is inclined to agree with the federalists, but he is too shrewd a practitioner of the art of the law to thrust the court into a political thicket like gay marriage, particularly when he can steer the court clear of the thicket altogether. As such, expect him to write the majority opinion joined by four very unenthusiastic liberals, who will write concurring opinions decrying the fact that the court did not strike down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

SEE MORE: Why is everyone shocked Victoria's Secret markets to teenagers?

In response, expect a feisty Scalia dissent and a short Thomas dissent.

United States v. Windsor (the Defense of Marriage Act case):
The Defense of Marriage Act is going down.

SEE MORE: The daily gossip: Kirsten Dunst says kissing Brad Pitt was 'disgusting,' and more

The case before the court also involves standing issues, but the Chief Justice, once again, is the only one who appears to really care about them. This will not matter though, since this time Kennedy will be joining the four liberals to author the opinion. As previously mentioned, Kennedy is a federalism fanatic, and, true to form, he devoted most of his questions at oral arguments to quibbling with the idea that the federal government has any authority to legislate on the issue of marriage at all.

Basically, Kennedy believes that marriage is a state concern. As such, his "majority" will strike down DOMA on federalism grounds. This will please no one, however, because it will mean that the court will not answer the question that almost everyone else on the bench, liberal and conservative, appear to wish to answer (albeit in different ways): Does DOMA violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection?

SEE MORE: Puff, puff, tax: Why some state budgets are banking on weed

But the liberals will take what they can get: They will concur in judgment, agreeing that DOMA should be struck down. But they will write their own opinions expressing their belief that the law is unconstitutional.

And in my "upset" prediction, I believe Chief Justice Roberts will join Justice Kennedy's majority — with the caveat that he believes the case lacks standing.

SEE MORE: 5 new revelations about Adam Lanza and the Sandy Hook massacre

What it means for marriage equality:
DOMA will fall, which is good for gay rights. But it will fall for reasons wholly separate from the core question of whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution protect a right for gay couples to marry. In other words, we will be right back where we started.

However, it should be said that these cases focused a great deal of attention on the issue of gay rights and marriage equality. That focus has lead to a surge in support from people on the left who have remained quiet. It has also demonstrated that attitudes towards marriage equality are changing on the right. That spotlight will serve the equality movement well going forward, demonstrating to people on the fence that supporting equality is very much a mainstream thing to do these days.

SEE MORE: What to expect from Mark Zuckerberg's new nonprofit

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is 'Inevitable'

gty rush limbaugh mi 130328 wblog Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is InevitableLimbaugh

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier this year, Limbaugh compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

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

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

Also Read

View the original article here

However court rules, gay marriage debate won't end

NEW YORK (AP) — However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

In oral arguments Tuesday and Wednesday on two cases involving gay couples' rights, the justices left open multiple options for rulings that are expected in June. But they signaled there was no prospect of imposing a 50-state solution at this stage. With nine states now allowing same-sex marriages and other states banning them via statutes or constitutional amendments, that means a longer spell with a patchwork marriage-rights map — and no early end to bruising state-by-state battles in the courts, in the legislatures and at the ballot box.

A decade ago, opponents of same-sex marriage were lobbying for a nationwide ban on gay nuptials. They now seem resigned to the reality of a divided nation in which the debate will continue to splinter families, church congregations and communities.

"It's a lot more healthy than shutting off an intense debate at the very moment of its greatest intensity," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

By contrast, supporters of same-sex marriage believe a nationwide victory is inevitable, though perhaps not imminent. Many of them see merit in continuing an incremental hearts-and-minds campaign, given that many opinion polls now show a majority of Americans supporting their cause.

"No matter what the Supreme Court decides, we are going to be in a stronger place in July than where we before," said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

"We have the momentum and we have the winning strategy," Wolfson said. "We are going to win the freedom to marry, whether in June or in the next round, when we go back to the court with more states, more public support and perhaps new justices."

Even if the Supreme Court shies away for now from any broad ruling in favor of marriage rights for gay couples, its decisions in June could produce major gains for gay-rights activists.

In one case, the justices could strike down a section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that denies legally married same-sex couples a host of federal benefits available to straight married couples. In the other, concerning California's Proposition 8 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court could leave in place a lower court ruling striking down the ban. That would add the most populous state to the ranks of those already recognizing gay marriages: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington, plus the District of Columbia.

With California included, that group would account for about 28 percent of the U.S. population.

Meanwhile, legislative efforts to legalize same-sex marriage are under way in Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware, and lawsuits by gay couples seeking marriage rights have been filed in several other states. In Oregon, gay-rights activists hope to place a measure on next year's ballot that would overturn a ban on gay marriage approved by voters in 2004. Legislators in Nevada are debating a bill that could lead to repeal of a similar ban there.

In advance of the Supreme Court hearings, gay-marriage backers mustered support from a broad array of interest groups, including labor and religious leaders, major corporations, even dozens of prominent Republicans who co-signed a brief filed with the high court. In the past few weeks, a parade of politicians have publicly endorsed same-sex marriage for the first time, including Republican Sen. Rob. Portman of Ohio and Democratic Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Former President Bill Clinton chimed in, too, writing that he now regretted his decision to sign the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 and urging that it be struck down. President Barack Obama's administration also asked that DOMA be declared unconstitutional and that Proposition 8 be struck down.

For gay-marriage opponents, it's been an occasionally daunting period as they watch a steady stream of prominent politicians and institutions join the rival side.

The conservative American Family Association's website, for example, listed some of the many well-known corporations that are now supporting same-sex marriage — including Google, Microsoft, Citigroup, Apple, Nike, Facebook and Starbucks. The website suggests that Americans opposed to gay marriage should boycott these companies, but the president of the Mississippi-based association, Tim Wildmon, acknowledges that would be impractical.

"There's too many of them to effectively boycott," he said in a telephone interview.

Wildmon expects the U.S. to remain divided over gay marriage for a long time and hopes neither Congress nor the courts try to interfere with the right of states to set their own policies.

"That's just the way it's going to be," he said. "If you want to be a homosexual married couple, move to a state that accepts it."

Such interstate moves could indeed occur, but with a potential cost for the states being forsaken, said gay rights lawyer Jon Davidson of Lambda Legal. "Maybe that's what some states want, but the outpouring of business support for us indicates a lot of businesses don't want that to happen," he said. "It creates all sorts of problems."

Among some conservatives, there's been frustration at the frequent exhortation from gay-rights activists that the Supreme Court should be "on the right side of history" by endorsing same-sex marriage.

"It requires no courage, at this point in history, to side with gay marriage advocates," Maggie Gallagher, a co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage, wrote in a commentary. "Respecting the rights of the millions of Americans who disagree, and respecting the boundaries of our Constitution, is staying on the right side of history."

Conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, on his show Wednesday, suggested the spread of same-sex marriage was indeed inevitable. He cited signs of increasing divisions among Republicans on the issue.

"Whether it happens now at the Supreme Court or somehow later, it is going to happen," Limbaugh said. "It's just the direction the culture is heading. ... The opposition that you would suspect exists is in the process of crumbling on it."

In any case, it's unlikely that some of the most conservative states — those that adopted gay-marriage bans by overwhelming margins — will recognize same-sex marriages unless forced to by the courts.

A likely result is a steady stream of state-level lawsuits by gay couples, according to Boston-based lawyer Mary Bonauto, whose work with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders helped legalize same-sex marriage in several New England states.

"There are committed gay couples in every state who want to stand up and make that legal commitment to marriage," Bonauto said. "They're not going to go away. ... They believe our national promise of equal protection under the law applies to them, too, not just to the East and West coasts and Iowa."

Depending on how such lawsuits fare, Bonauto said, "I think this issue could be back at the Supreme Court in a number of years."

___

Follow David Crary on Twitter: http://twitter.com/CraryAP


View the original article here

Congress Democrats Holding Out on Gay Marriage in the Minority

The number of Democrats who publicly oppose gay marriage dwindled this week as arguments in two Supreme Court cases drew national attention - and political pressure - to the issue.

In a matter of four days, six Democratic senators issued statements indicating that their view of the marriage debate had changed in favor of allowing Americans to marry regardless of gender. Only nine of the 53 Democrats in the Senate continue to oppose marriage equality in some way, and of those, few come down staunchly on the side of preserving the traditional one-man, one-woman definition.

Those nine senators are Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bill Nelson of Florida, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Of the nine, some oppose DOMA, some have adopted a wait-and-see attitude, others are less specific.

Manchin's answer is straightforward: Spokesperson Katie Longo said that guided by his faith, Manchin "believes that a marriage is a union between one man and one woman" and wants to uphold DOMA.

Nelson is a more complicated case. In May 2012 he told the Miami Herald he believes the issue should be left to the states, but a spokesperson for his office told TIME this week that Nelson supports the one-man, one-woman vision of traditional marriage.

Some of those with more complicated stances on the issue tend to value a term President Obama once used to describe his views on gay marriage: "evolving."

"Senator Carper was proud to support Delaware's efforts to enact civil union legislation and earlier this month he joined 211 of his Congressional colleagues in co-signing the amicus brief that urges the Supreme Court to invalidate Section 3 of DOMA," a spokesperson for Carper told ABC News this week. "Like many Americans including Presidents Obama and Clinton, Senator Carper's views on this issue have evolved, and continue to evolve."

"Change" is another favorite.

"We'll have to see what the Supreme Court says about gay marriage," Landrieu told POLITICO on Tuesday. "And I just think that people's views about it are changing quite rapidly, a more progressive position. I'm just going to continue to talk to the people of my state."

An ABC/Washington Post poll released last week showed support for legal gay marriage among Americans had grown from 37 percent in 2003 to 58 percent. Almost 84 percent of Democratic Congress members signed an amicus brief for the Supreme Court asking them to overturn DOMA.

That said, not all those who signed the brief have come out in favor of legalizing gay marriage in their state - Carper, for example.

Even Republicans, typically a group staunchly opposed to gay marriage, have seen some switching up in the past month. More than 80 signed on to a similar amicus brief, led by former George W. Bush White House political director Ken Mehlman. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, announced his support for marriage equality earlier this month, and Wednesday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, announced she was "evolving" on the issue, after her Democratic counterpart, Sen. Mark Begich, endorsed it.

Political strategist Jason Johnson predicts the flood of politicians piling onto the other side isn't going to dry up any time soon. Any hesitancy to express support for same-sex marriage on either side of the aisle stems from uncertainty in how important gay marriage is to voters, according to Johnson.

"No one has been able to figure out with any effective consistency how gay voters vote and how straight voters vote on gay issues," Johnson told ABC News on Thursday. "It's very hard to determine what percentage of your population in your constituency are openly out gay voters and if gay marriage is their driving issue."

For Democrats, though, he said pressure is only going up.

"It's going to become a litmus test for Democrats and they're going to receive money pressure, and really at this point there's not much of a benefit … to standing against it, because it's the direction that the entire country is going in."

Also Read

View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 28 tháng 3, 2013

House GOP Leaders Silent on Marriage Law They're Paying to Defend

As attorney Paul Clement took to the Supreme Court to defend the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of House Republicans, the lawmakers who hired him to do so stood silently by. It was the right thing to do, many Republican strategists say, to avoid distracting from the GOP’s core economic message.

But some members of the House Republican Conference thought their leaders should have done more to publicly stand behind an effort that is important to social conservatives.

“The silence was absolutely deafening and very disappointing to the millions of value voters that are in the party,” Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., told National Journal Daily.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., are the three members of the five-person Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group who voted to hire Clement to defend the 1996 law before the Supreme Court after the Obama administration instructed the Justice Department to cease defending its constitutionality. Despite a high-profile case and hoards of protesters demonstrating both for and against gay marriage in Washington, the three have maintained a low profile, offering nary a statement or press release on the issue.

The vocal lawmaker has been House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She also sits on BLAG and disagreed with the group's majority decision to hire a lawyer to defend DOMA on behalf of the body. Pelosi attended the oral arguments on Wednesday, in the midst of a two-week congressional recess,  and returned afterward to the Capitol, where she blasted House Republicans for being “just plain wrong” for defending the law.

“I think their behavior has been not a model for the future, let's put it that way,” Pelosi said when asked about the silence from the GOP leadership. “It’s really disappointing and unworthy of a subject that is going before the Supreme Court of our country, that has such an impact on not only these marriage-equality families but also on our whole country as to who we are.”

Pelosi was the most vocal Democrat on Wednesday, as the White House also demurred from saying much about the arguments or predicting the outcome of the Court's ruling.

She especially took issue with the $3 million spent defending the law, even though the bipartisan group had only agreed to spend $500,000. She said that BLAG's Democratic members, she and Majority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland,   were not consulted about the decision to raise the amount of the contract with Clement’s firm, Bancroft.

She noted of the GOP's position on the issue, “$3 million dollars speaks very loudly.” 

But for a party undergoing a debate about how to broaden its appeal in the future, a low-key approach may have been the best strategy to avoid the appearance of intolerance — especially when the decision is in the hands of the Court now, and public pronouncements would likely have no effect.

“You don’t want to insert yourself in something that you end up burning political capital on and the Court decides by the wave of a wand,” said GOP strategist Ron Bonjean.

Republican strategist Rick Wilson noted that the issue is likely to fade from public view as the Supreme Court moves from oral arguments to closed-door deliberations for several months. “It’ll drop off the public radar screen, so why extend that?” he asked. “Why drag it out?”

The GOP is not on the same side as public opinion, which is rapidly shifting to favor same-sex unions. The Republican leadership seems to recognize that and has been hammering away at less politically sensitive issues like jobs, spending, and the health care law rather than social issues.

“I don’t think that speaking out against gay marriage is part of the strategic communications plan for most members of the House,” said John Feehery, who served as a spokesman for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Even Boehner’s statement when he convened BLAG to discuss whether the House should pay to defend DOMA indicated not an enthusiastic commitment to the legislation, but rather regret that it distracted from other priorities.

“It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy,” Boehner said in March 2011, not long after the administration announced its intent to stop defending the law in court. “The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts — not by the president unilaterally — and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner constituent with our Constitution,” he said.

Boehner isn’t the only one eager to avoid embroiling his party in debate over divisive social issues. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told USA Today this week that the GOP shouldn’t “act like Old Testament heretics” on the issue. An “autopsy” report of the 2012 election issued by the RNC last week warned that younger voters were being turned off by the attention to such issues, and that Republicans should change their tone.

However, more socially conservative lawmakers, such as Huelskamp, say that’s just pressure from Washington elites. Huelskamp said that the party should attract minority voters by sticking to its convictions on social issues, where they have some overlap with African-American and Hispanic voters.

The strategists disagree, saying that the GOP leadership has played this correctly.

“If the Republican Party is smart … we’ll focus on the message of growth and opportunity. That’s what moves people right now. That’s what people are focused on,” said Wilson.


View the original article here

A boost for gay marriage: Justices question US law

WASHINGTON (AP) — Concluding two days of intense debate, the Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it could give a boost to same-sex marriage by striking down the federal law that denies legally married gay spouses a wide range of benefits offered to other couples.

As the court wrapped up its remarkable arguments over gay marriage in America, a majority of the justices indicated they will invalidate part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — if they can get past procedural problems similar to those that appeared to mark Tuesday's case over California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Since the federal law was enacted in 1996, nine states and the District of Columbia have made it legal for gays and lesbians to marry. Same-sex unions also were legal in California for nearly five months in 2008 before the Proposition 8 ban.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote in close cases, joined the four more-liberal justices in raising questions Wednesday about a provision that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman for purposes of federal law.

It affects more than 1,100 statutes in which marital status is relevant, dealing with tax breaks for married couples, Social Security survivor benefits and, for federal employees, health insurance and leave to care for spouses.

Kennedy said the Defense of Marriage Act appears to intrude on the power of states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. When so many federal statutes are affected, "which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens' day-to-day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody," Kennedy said.

Other justices said the law creates what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called two classes of marriage, full and "skim-milk marriage."

If the court does strike down part of DOMA, it would represent a victory for gay rights advocates. But it would be something short of the endorsement of gay marriage nationwide that some envisioned when the justices agreed in December to hear the federal case and the challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Still, the tenor of the arguments over two days reflected how quickly attitudes have changed since large majorities in Congress passed the federal DOMA in 1996 and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. In 2011, President Barack Obama abandoned the legal defense of the law in the face of several lawsuits, and last year Obama endorsed gay marriage. Clinton, too, has voiced regret for signing the law and now supports allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

In 1996, the House of Representatives' report on the legislation explained that one of its purposes was "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." Justice Elena Kagan read those words in the courtroom Wednesday, evoking a reaction from the audience that sounded like a cross between a gasp and nervous laughter.

Kagan's quotation gave lawyer Paul Clement, representing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives that has taken up defense of the law in place of the administration, some uncomfortable moments at the lectern.

"Does the House report say that? Of course, the House report says that. And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute," Clement said. But he said the more relevant question is whether Congress had "any rational basis for the statute." He supplied one: the federal government's interest in treating same-sex couples the same no matter where they live.

Clement said the government does not want military families "to resist transfer from West Point to Fort Sill because they're going to lose their benefits." The U.S. Military Academy at West Point is in New York, where same-sex marriage is legal, and Fort Sill is in Oklahoma, where gay marriages are not legal.

Opposing Clement was the Obama administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Donald Verrilli, who said the provision of DOMA at issue, Section 3, impermissibly discriminates against gay people.

"I think it's time for the court to recognize that this discrimination, excluding lawfully married gay and lesbian couples from federal benefits, cannot be reconciled with our fundamental commitment to equal treatment under law," Verrilli said.

Both Verrilli and Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer for Edith Windsor, the 83-year-old New York woman who sued over DOMA, told the court that views about gay people and marriage have shifted dramatically since 1996 when the law was approved.

"Why are you so confident in that judgment? How many states permit gay couples to marry?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked Kaplan.

Nine, she said.

"So there's been a sea change between now and 1996," Scalia said, doubtfully.

But Chief Justice John Roberts jumped on the idea of a rapid shift in opinion to suggest that perhaps gays and lesbians do not need special protection from the court.

"As far as I can tell, political leaders are falling all over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts said.

The justices stepped into the dispute after lower federal courts ruled against the measure.

The DOMA argument followed Tuesday's case over California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case in which the justices indicated they might avoid a major national ruling on whether America's gays and lesbians have a right to marry. Even without a significant ruling, the court appeared headed for a resolution that would mean the resumption of gay and lesbian weddings in California.

Supreme Court arguments are the most visible part of the justices' consideration of the cases before them, but they often play a relatively small role in rulings compared to the mountain of legal briefs that are filed in the weeks leading up to the public sessions.

Lawsuits around the country have led four federal district courts and two appeals courts to strike down DOMA's Section 3, which defines marriage. In 2011, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law but continues to enforce it.

The change in position led the court to consider the related questions of whether the House Republican leadership can defend the law in court because the administration decided not to, and whether the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case.

Roberts and Scalia seemed most interested in this sort of outcome, and the chief justice offered perhaps the most pointed comment of the day when he wondered why Obama continues to enforce a law he believes is unconstitutional.

"I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, 'Oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice,'" Roberts said.

If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get the $363,000 estate tax refund for which she sued because she won in the lower courts. But there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court, and it would remain on the books.

Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 in Canada after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. Spyer, who suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years, died in 2009 and left everything she had to Windsor.

There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero. Windsor was in court Wednesday, where she received a hug from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi before the argument started.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

Reflecting the high interest in the cases, the court released an audio recording of Wednesday's argument, just as it did Tuesday for that day's proceedings.

Wednesday's audio can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/d626ybg . Tuesday's is at: http://tinyurl.com/dxefy2a .

A somewhat smaller crowd gathered outside the court Wednesday, mainly gay marriage supporters who held American and rainbow flags. "Two, four, six, eight, we do not discriminate," a group chanted at one point. "If this isn't the time, when is the time? When does equality come into play?" asked Laura Scott, 43, of Columbia, Md.

Wednesday's case is U.S. v. Windsor, 12-307.

___

Associated Press writer Jessica Gresko contributed to this report.

___

Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter at: www.twitter.com/shermancourt

Follow Jessica Gresko on Twitter at: www.twitter.com/jessicagresko


View the original article here

America's Biggest Celebrities, Brands Turn Red for Marriage Equality

Beyonce, Leonardo DiCaprio and Smirnoff, others have helped equality logo go viral

WASHINGTON, March 27, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Over the past twenty four hours, many of America's most recognized brand names and Hollywood's biggest stars have joined millions of people around the world in sharing a modified red version of the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) logo in support of marriage equality.  HRC, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, launched a social media campaign Monday afternoon in conjunction with two marriage cases before the Supreme Court this week, in an effort to raise awareness and help showcase the broad and diverse support for marriage equality.

"Support for marriage equality is growing every day, but this one simple image gave countless millions a straightforward way to show their support for this civil rights cause—many for the very first time," said HRC President Chad Griffin.

Dozens of celebrities have shared HRC's red logo or messages via social media, including Beyonce, Leonardo DiCaprio, Fergie, Russell Simmons, Kristen Bell, Alicia Keys, Patrick Stewart, Carson Daly, Kathy Griffin, George Takei, the Ellen Degeneres Show, Jake Johnson, Jaime King, Mandy Moore, Whitney Cummings, Abby Wambach, Jason Mraz, Tegan & Sara, Sophia Bush, Lance Bass and Alyssa Milano, as well as the official Facebook page for HBO's True Blood. 

Some of America's biggest brands, including Orbitz, Fab.com, and Kenneth Cole have also taken note of the logo's viral popularity, launching personalized versions of their own.  Bud Light created a modified version of HRC's logo, using two beer cans for the equal sign.  Popular clothing retailer Bonobos used khaki pants, and Kimpton Hotels used two pillows.  Martha Stewart Living posted a slice of red cake with icing as the equal sign to Facebook.

As part of HRC's robust social media efforts around the two cases before the Supreme Court, the red logo launched on the HRC Facebook page at 1:00pm ET Monday.  Originally designed in 1995, HRC's standard blue and yellow equality logo is one of the most visible and recognized symbols of the LGBT equality movement.

The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

SOURCE Human Rights Campaign


View the original article here

Why the GOP should want to lose the Supreme Court's gay marriage case

A sweeping ruling affirming marriage equality would do the GOP a huge political favor

It would be natural to assume that most members of the Republican Party hope that the Supreme Court will not use the two gay-marriage cases it heard this week to issue a broad ruling affirming the constitutional right of gays and lesbians to marry. However, top officials in the GOP are reportedly praying for precisely that outcome, calculating that it would be the most effective way to remove gay marriage as a political liability.

Republican analysts see the party's opposition to gay marriage as a massive drag on their electoral prospects going forward. A solid majority of Americans now support marriage equality, and most worryingly for the GOP, more than 80 percent of young voters do as well. The Republican National Committee has described gay marriage as a "gateway" issue for a whole generation of new voters to identify with the Democratic Party, possibly doing lasting damage to the conservative party's brand. 

SEE MORE: What happens if North Korea collapses?

But the GOP's base isn't budging, which is why some Republican operatives see their salvation in the Supreme Court, reports Alexander Burns at Politico:

[T]he Republican Party and its evangelical core have not moved with the rest of the country, tying the GOP — for now — to a position that’s anathema to the majority of younger, more educated, and politically independent voters; precisely the voters the party needs to begin clearing out the wreckage of two consecutive presidential defeats.

The only obvious way to square that political circle in the short term is through a sweeping Supreme Court decision — one that strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act and invalidates California’s Proposition 8 law banning same-sex marriage. [Politico]

Without the Supreme Court introducing the political equivalent of a deus ex machina, analysts say the Republican Party will have to evolve the hard way, meeting stiff resistance from its base. As Jay Bookman at The Atlanta Journal Constitution writes:

So as a Republican leader, you’re trapped between a rock and a hard place. You’re caught between Scylla and Charybdis, between the devil and the deep blue sea. You’re damned if you do and...well you get the point. The longer you stay where you are, the greater the damage to your party’s future. But if you try to reposition yourself, you alienate a good portion of the current GOP coalition. [AJC]

Of course, a far-reaching Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage could also create problems for Republicans, invigorating staunchly conservative primary voters and pushing the party further right. "This would obviously be a net win for national Democrats," conservative strategist Patrick Hynes tells Politico.

SEE MORE: Why even red-state Democrats are jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon

But as long as the legal status of gay marriage remains unsettled, and support for marriage equality continues to rise, Democrats are sure to milk the issue for all it's worth — to the GOP's detriment.

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here