Category Archives: Marriage & Family

Washington Post: Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk on Tuesday became the second Republican senator and the fourth GOP Member of Congress to support gay marriage. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), and Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) are the other three. Here’s a closer look at each of them — and their reasons for breaking with their party’s long-held position on marriage.

Cliff Kincaid at Canada Free Press: A big news story came out of Tuesday’s March for Marriage demonstration in Washington, D.C. But it didn’t make “news” in the major media. As one who covered the event, it was significant that there were so many members of minority groups. This was not a mostly white crowd. In addition to the presence of black, Hispanic and Asian supporters of traditional marriage, there were some notable Democrats, such as New York State Senator Ruben Díaz, and he let people know he was several minorities in one.

Toni Meyer of NJ FPC at NJ.com: Since 1994, the number of homosexual men has increased 18 percent, but the number of women who identify as such has gone up 157 percent. This suggests there are strong cultural factors at work in encouraging same-sex behaviors, and at least indirectly, it undermines the whole theory of being “born that way.”

Huffington Post: That leaves just seven Senate Democrats against gay marriage: Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). Two among that list, Landrieu and Pryor, face tough reelection battles in 2014 in conservative states.

The Florida Family Policy Council sent this letter to the Senate Children and Families Committee in connection with its consideration of domestic partnerships/

Herald Tribune: In a landmark vote that may signal a shift in legislative attitudes, a Senate committee on Monday narrowly endorsed the creation of a statewide domestic partnership registry that could extend some legal protections to same-sex couples. “We have made history in the Florida Senate,” Sen. Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood, said, as the Senate Children, Families and Elder Affairs Committee voted 5-4 for the registry bill (SB 196).

Gay Politics: The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund today announced its endorsement of openly gay Massachusetts State Rep. Carl Sciortino in a likely special election to replace Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

Politico: “There is a split,” said Santorum, on the views of younger Republicans on gay marriage and abortion. “But the marriage issue is still a very new issue in America, and people said in the 1970s it was just a matter of time before everybody became pro-choice. So, I think we’ll see the pendulum swing back once young conservatives see the real consequences to the destruction of marriage.”

PBS: Now the debate over vouchers and school choice is heating up anew in some states — the latest, last week, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a 2011 state law allowing tax funds to be used for private schools through tuition vouchers.

Chicago Tribune: Kirk’s decision brings to 50 the number of U.S. senators who support gay marriage, including 46 Democrats, two independents and two Republicans, according to Charlie Joughin, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights group that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.

AP: Massachusetts prison officials have asked a federal appeals court to overturn a ruling granting a taxpayer-funded sex change for a transgender inmate.

AP: Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach ruled last week that he has no jurisdiction to approve the divorce because Arizona doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages and there isn’t enough evidence that Beatie was a man when he married Nancy Beatie in Hawaii.

AP: A letter from the Phoenix-based Center for Arizona Policy says an ordinance scheduled for a Tuesday night vote by the Bisbee City Council would violate the Arizona Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, and would be the subject of a costly legal fight.

ACLU: Several national LGBT groups filed an administrative challenge last week to Medicare’s ban on medically necessary healthcare for transgender patients. Medicare currently prohibits all forms of gender reassignment surgeries regardless of the individual patient’s diagnosis or serious medical needs.

Baptist Press: A group of parents and scoutmasters has launched OnMyHonor.net in an effort to keep sex and politics out of the Boy Scouts of America.

NPR (includes video): In a weekend interview, Rep. Matt Salmon, a Republican of Arizona, told a local news station that his openly gay son has not changed his position on same-sex marriage.

Politico: Sen. Bob Casey became the latest Democratic senator to announce his support of same-sex marriage and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on Monday.

CTPost.com: The Boy Scouts of America have rejected an application for a scouting troop sponsored by a Utah gay rights organization.

Ryan T. Anderson at LifeSiteNews: In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This reduces marriage to a system to approve emotional bonds or distribute legal privileges.

LifeSiteNews: A Pew Research Forum this month found that 70 percent of those born after 1981 favor marriage redefinition. No other generation crossed the threshold of 50 percent.

Daily Record: The New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has renewed its push to legalize gay marriage in the state under a new executive director.

American Federation for Children: The American Federation for Children – the nation’s voice for educational choice – today applauded the efforts of Georgia Governor Nathan Deal and the Georgia legislature for passing legislation to raise the cap and add additional accountability and transparency measures to the Georgia Scholarship Tax Credit Program, ensuring more money reaches disadvantaged children throughout the state.

CBS: An Arizona House panel late Wednesday approved a measure targeting transgendered people who want to use bathrooms of the gender they identify with, voting along party lines to advance a bill that protects business owners who bar the practice.

Politico: Conservatives watching this week’s gay marriage arguments at the Supreme Court are wondering if it will happen again: Unelected justices ignoring the will of legislatures and high-handedly imposing their own wishes on one of society’s most divisive moral issues. In political circles in Washington and elsewhere, a good number of these conservatives will also make a surprising confession: They are strongly rooting for that outcome exactly.

Washington Post: Agema on Wednesday posted the text of an article titled “Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals,” that is attributed to Frank Joseph, M.D. The article states that students need to be informed about the negative effects of homosexuality in order to “preserve their health and avoid cutting off about 15-20 years of their life span.”

Patch.com: The Coventry senator says he hasn’t made a “firm decision” yet on voting to allow SSM legislation to be voted on by the full Senate.

The Hill: Dr. Ben Carson on Friday apologized for remarks he made earlier in the week linking homosexuality to bestiality.

The HIll: Eleven House Democrats are on record as opposing gay marriage, even as support within their party for the issue builds. Another nine haven’t taken definitive positions in support of or against gay marriage.

AP: The archbishop of New York says the Roman Catholic Church has to make sure that its defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gays.

Erwin Chemerinsky at SCOTUS Blog: But still it is impossible to not think about what might happen in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor.   There are two questions:  First, will the Court dismiss one or both cases without reaching the issue of whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marriage equality?   Second, if the Court reaches the merits what might it do?

NPR audio: It was a busy week in the debate over gay marriage, with two Supreme Court cases and a number of members of Congress moving from opposition to endorsement. NPR’s Nina Totenberg and NPR political editor Ron Elving join host Scott Simon for a recap.

NPR’s On Point audio and description here.

Nathan Cherry at Engage Family Minute: I find this interesting because in my experience with pastors this is a topic many try to avoid. They don’t want to offend the young, liberal Christians in their congregation, or seem too “political,” so they simply avoid the topic. I find it puzzling since it is a biblical moral issue.

Cong. Steve King at NRO: To marry, two people must prove they are of opposite sex, not related, of age, and not married to anyone else. There is no requirement for proof of enduring love, comingling of finances, or even intent to cohabitate. To ask the government to certify any of those things would offend all Americans who jealously guard their individual autonomy.

John Bursch at SCOTUS Blog: Parsing Supreme Court oral argument transcripts to predict outcomes is a bit like using tea leaves to predict the future; neither method is very reliable. But at the risk of being left out of the prediction derby entirely, we can consider potential outcomes on a probability spectrum.

Breitbart: This would be an easy case with clear adherence to two constitutional principles. Prop 8 and DOMA would both be upheld. Now we’ll find out how those two principles fare before the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court. Part I is about Hollingsworth, and Part II is about Windsor.
This is Part II, the Windsor case:

ABC: Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is “evolving” on the issue of gay marriage, but she has stopped short of joining the other senator from Alaska, Mark Begich, D-Alaska, in endorsing it.

Volokh Conspiracy: In his most recent post, my co-blogger Randy Barnett writes that “defining marriage — like defining property — is a traditional function of the states.” He continues: [T]hat is crazy. It would be like saying you “own” your home under the property law of California, but you don’t “own” your home “for purposes of federal law.” Such a dual property system would undermine the institution of property, and the traditional power of States to define property, every bit as much as allowing a dual system of state and federal marriage undermines the institution of marriage, and the traditional power of states to regulate marriage.

How Appealing has compiled a lengthy list of coverage on this week’s arguments here.

Todd Starnes at Townhall: “It would be an enormous mistake if they allowed homosexuality in scouting,” he said. “They have no idea what these folks really want to do.” Stemberger said there are already gays in scouting — “they are discreet, they are appropriate, they are private and they don’t act out in front of kids.”
“What they want is full-blown gay activism in scouting,” he said, “and that’s what they can’t have under the current policy.”

AP: The original bill would have made it a crime for a transgendered person to use a bathroom other than his or her birth sex. The new bill instead seeks to shield businesses from civil or criminal liability if they ban people from restrooms that don’t match their birth sex.

Wall Street Opinion Journal: Editorial board member Joe Rago on the Supreme Court oral testimony on California’s Prop. 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Photo credit: Associated Press.

Ken Klukowski at Breitbart: The likely swing vote on this issue of “standing” is Chief Justice John Roberts. Kennedy tipped his hand that he might regard the official sponsors of Prop 8—which the California Supreme Court unanimously held are empowered by the California Constitution to defend the measure in court—as meeting the U.S. Constitution’s requirements for the lawsuit to proceed.

CBS New York: With the cost of living on the rise and showing no sign of slowing down, total strangers desperate to save money are moving in together.

Nathan Cherry of Engage Family Minute at Illinois Family Institute: It is stunning to talk with people that believe same-sex “marriage” is the “end of the line” in the fight to redefine marriage. Unsuspecting or perhaps naïve is the best way to describe such a mentality. To believe that homosexual activists would simply seek to redefine marriage to include their lifestyle, while ignoring all other “alternative lifestyles” is simply absurd. The reality is that same-sex “marriage” is just another step in the process to erase the boundaries of what constitutes marriage and family.

Michael Foust at Baptist Press: Following are commonly asked questions about the Supreme Court’s two days of arguments in the gay marriage cases.

Christian Newswire: World Congress of Families (WCF) was proud to be a co-sponsor of the March 26th March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. where more than 10,000 pro-marriage citizens and a coalition of more than 45 organizations from across the country and from every walk of life marched and rallied peacefully.

Matthew J. Franck at NRO: The transcript of today’s oral argument in United States v. Windsor, the Defense of Marriage Act case, ranges widely across both jurisdictional issues and the merits of DOMA’s constitutionality. I think the jurisdictional issues are much harder to sort out than the merits are. And it seems clear from the amount of time devoted to these issues, and the character of the justices’ questions and their answers to the responses, that they regard them as tougher than in yesterday’s Perry case on Prop 8

National Journal: There’s been an “evolution” in their thinking. There’s also a lot of money on the table.

CNSNews: During oral arguments on Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court on a case testing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that Congress could have used a more “neutral” term than marriage in the law the defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman for federal purposes.

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUS Blog: Students of Windsor and Hollingsworth have always recognized a basic tension between the theories of gay-rights advocates in the cases. The challenge to DOMA is undergirded by a sense that marriage is a matter for state rather than federal regulation. The challenge to Proposition 8 is a direct challenge to just such a decision by a state.

LifeSiteNews: Thousands of Americans from all religions, races, and political parties gathered around the nation as the Supreme Court heard the first of two cases concerning the definition of marriage, with two boisterous and sometimes clashing crowds meeting outside the Supreme Court. (see Media Reseach video report here)

Robert Knight at Townhall: Over the past few weeks, the War on Marriage has turned into a Blitzkrieg.

NC Register: Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, criticized the group’s dismissal of evidence that children raised by same-sex partners face disadvantages.

AP: North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan said Wednesday she backs marriage rights for same-sex couples, joining a growing number of Democratic Party politicians ahead of her re-election race next year.

Nick Rosenkranz at the Volokh Conspiracy: He begins by conceding: “In most every conceivable case, there is no objection to any particular definition adopted by Congress for purposes of federal law. Most definitions can easily be shown to be both necessary and proper to an enumerated power.” This is absolutely correct. But if that’s so, I asked: “what is it that makes DOMA different? The fact that it applies to 1100 statutes…?” And Randy answers: “Yes exactly. It was indiscriminately adopted to apply to all statutes regardless of whether the definition was a necessary or proper means of executing any one of them….”

Bloomberg: President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign — a political powerhouse with 20 million e-mail addresses and 4 million volunteers — is setting its sights on state-level battles such as gay marriage legislation in Illinois.

Wall Street Journal: One of the odder moments in Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments over gay marriage came when the justices started talking about the fertility of older people and Justice Antonin Scalia attempted to make a joke about former Sen. Strom Thurmond, who had four children in his late 60s and 70s.

Hadley Arkes at NRO: From the back and forth this morning, it appears that the issue of the Supreme Court’s “standing” is not likely to be decisive. Even Justice Kennedy seemed to be concerned to answer that question — and put it out of the way . . . Coming out of the courtroom today, the defenders of marriage were decorously upbeat: One savvy observer thought that the odds on Kennedy tilted to the conservative side were about 70 percent.

LifeSiteNews: “I’m a Republican,” he said in rising cadences. “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 with me as I possibly can!” His speech seemed to take aim at the assessment of Republican strategist Karl Rove, who said on Sunday that he could see the next Republican presidenital candidate supporting gay “marriage.

David French at NRO: For the Christian, marriage should be a covenant relationship, between a man and woman, that is designed to last for life — with the only scriptural grounds for divorce being adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. Yet our pews are full of divorced Christians, and many of these are not people who’ve divorced, repented of the sin of divorce, then sought forgiveness and redemption (though some are). Instead, they are people who’ve divorced wrongly, sought acceptance of their choice, salve for their emotional pain, and now seek to remain in fellowship — on their terms.

Investor Place: At the annual shareholder’s meeting — held last Thursday in Seattle — a shareholder asked Schultz pointedly about the company’s support for gay marriage, reports The Puget Sound Business Journal.

Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy at AZ Republic: If you watch much of what’s portrayed about the marriage debate today, you’d be left wondering why anyone would support the true definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Sadly, in the political discourse and media hype about marriage, the honest conversation about the meaning and purpose of this essential union is lost.

Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy: At the oral argument today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Justice Scalia repeatedly questioned Ted Olson on when same-sex marriage became unconstitutional. From the transcript . . .

Tallahassee.com: That is why, as president of the NFL Players Association, I’m standing with the majority of Americans who support the freedom to marry. This simple endorsement of equality might surprise some people.

The Hill: A divided Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether the Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage — and how broadly such a right would extend.

Heritage Foundation: In a new paper, Heritage expert Jason Richwine reveals that “Proper accounting would reveal tens of billions of dollars in extra teacher pension costs, equivalent to somewhere around $1,000 in unreported spending per student.”

Ken Klukowski at Breitbart: This would be an easy case with clear adherence to two constitutional principles. Prop 8 and DOMA would both be upheld. Now we’ll find out how those two principles fare before the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court. Part I is about Hollingsworth, and Part II is about Windsor.

Washington Post: Now, it seems not only possible but also likely that same-sex marriage will be legal, widespread and, frankly, mundane and that this will happen relatively soon. The Supreme Court must play a part in this civil rights triumph — and justices should not shrink from it.

NY Times Editorial: The court should avoid that kind of error in the same-sex-marriage cases. It should broadly declare that under the Constitution the right to marry applies equally to all couples, period, and that this principle applies to the federal government and every state.

Daily Mail: In short, the Supreme Court ought to allow the public – as a society – to decide the future of marriage. Why? Because marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

More information here.

Theodore Olson and David Boies at Wall Street Journal (via Google) . . . withholding marriage causes infinite and permanent stigma, pain and isolation. It denies gay men and lesbians their identity and their dignity; it labels their families as second-rate. That outcome cannot be squared with the principle of equality and the unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is the bedrock promise of America from the Declaration of Independence to the 14th Amendment, and the dream of all Americans. This badge of inequality must be extinguished.

Rich Lowry at National Review: By seeking a shortcut in the courts, supporters of gay marriage want to end debate through judicial fiat. In an amicus brief in the case, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty points out the consequences if traditional marriage is deemed irrational. Religious people and groups objecting to same-sex marriage will “face a wave of private civil litigation under anti-discrimination laws never intended for that purpose,” and they will be “penalized by state and local governments.” In other words, supporters of the exotic-sounding practice of “opposite-sex marriage” will be marginalized forevermore.

Politico: A Saperstein poll, released Sunday, showed that 54 percent of Ohioans now support a new amendment, which would repeal the state’s 2004 measure banning gay marriage and “allow two consenting adults to marry, regardless of their gender,” The Columbus Dispatch reported.