Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s days away: The Supreme Court’s marriage decision is expected to come down on June 29.
National Law Journal: Whatever the outcome, the historic U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments over same-sex marriage on April 28 turned out to be a riveting dialogue that fleshed out many of the contentious issues at stake.
Russell Moore: The villain had a messiah complex, complete with some cribbed lines from the actual Messiah. But what surprised me the most was the jarring centrality of the family in this film. And by family, I don’t mean the elastic, redefined concept of “families” but an undercurrent of pining for the stability of the natural, nuclear family.
Public Discourse: The European Convention on Human Rights does not require European nations to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships. However, the European Court of Human Rights may rule in the future that member states must recognize same-sex civil unions.
American Thinker: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case to determine whether the Constitution requires states to issue same-sex marriage licenses and requires other states to honor same-sex marriages performed in those states. A primary argument by the plaintiffs is that gay marriage is covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and that if straights can marry, then so can gays.
WND: A letter to Rhodes has been signed by Edwin Meese of the Conservative Action Project; Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List; J. Kenneth Blackwell, formerly of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; Lt. Gen. William Boykin of Family Research Council; Tim Wildmon of American Family Association; David Bossie of Citizens United; Douglas Napier of Alliance Defending Freedom; Herman Cain of The New Voice; and Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America.
CNS News: The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether the people of our republic will be permitted to continue to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
World Magazine (Subscription Required): From an office in Brick, N.J., therapist Tara King counsels clients struggling with addictions, abusive pasts, broken relationships, and occasionally those dealing with same-sex attractions.
Public Discourse: If marriage were simply a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership, then the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment would require the Supreme Court to strike down state laws limiting marriage licenses to male-female partners.
Life Site News: Mary Bonauto, a Massachusetts lawyer who asked the justices to redefine marriage, began by making high claims on behalf of same-sex “marriage.”
Michigan approves bills that allow adoption agencies to refuse service based on sexual orientation and religion
World Religion News: There are three bills heading toward the Governor’s desk passed through the House on party line votes. Prior to the votes, two hours of opposition and supporting testimonies were given by a wide range of people, including parents of varying sexual orientation who have adopted children into their homes.
Deseret News: Just where the U.S. Supreme Court will come down on same-sex marriage isn’t readily apparent from the aggressive questions justices asked lawyers for both sides Tuesday.
The Telegraph: Workers with traditional views on marriage would have the right to refuse to carry out tasks which they believe would amount to condoning same-sex unions, under plans put forward by Ukip.
Aleteia: If the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage must be legal across the nation, could religious colleges and universities lose their tax- exempt status?
Wall Street Journal (Access via Google): On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that asks whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry. Four days before the hearing, in Oregon, an administrative-law judge proposed a $135,000 fine against Aaron and Melissa Klein, proprietors of the Sweet Cakes bakery in Gresham, for the “emotional distress” suffered by a lesbian couple for whom the Kleins, citing their Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, had declined to bake a wedding cake in 2013.
GoFundMe bans fundraising for religious business owners charged by state for refusing to cater a gay wedding
HotAir: Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing Arlene’s Flowers, said in an interview Tuesday that GoFundMe’s decision to drop the page, even though Ms. Stutzman has not been charged with a crime, raises questions as to whether GoFundMe is discriminating on the basis of religion.
The Weekly Standard: In January 2013, Rachel Cryer and her mother walked into Sweet Cakes By Melissa, a bakery in Gresham, Oregon, and tried to order a wedding cake. Aaron Klein, the co-owner (and Melissa’s husband), was informed Cryer would be marrying another woman.
Religion News Service (Reuters): An Oregon judge has ruled that the owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple should pay the couple $135,000 in damages, state officials said Tuesday.
The Christian Institute: The Northern Ireland Assembly has rejected same-sex marriage legislation by an outright majority for the fourth time.
The Christian Institute: A Christian-run bakery in the US may have to pay $135,000 in damages for declining to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
The Christian Institute: The judgment on the Ashers Baking Company case is to be given in open court on Thursday 7 May.
The Christian Institute: Church ministers who refuse to conduct same-sex weddings could be sued under European law, the Church of Scotland has warned.
The Christian Institute: A woman in the Republic of Ireland who was charged with assisting in the suicide of her friend has been found not guilty.
National Review Online: There is a natural temptation on the part of Court-watchers to overread the import of snippets of oral argument.
One News Now: Throwing another monkey wrench in homosexual activists’ claim that there is a “gay” gene — that homosexual behavior manifests from a biological condition rather than from a choice — a prominent psychiatrist argues that gender confusion is a temporary mental disorder that leads to suicidal tendencies, if nurtured.
Christian News Network: During Tuesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito questioned an attorney if multiple consenting adults should be allowed to “marry” if those of the same gender are granted the same recognition.
Christian News Network (Yahoo News): In the same-sex-marriage oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, eight of the justices revealed their personalities and their very different approaches to marriage equality in particular and the Constitution in general. What follows are the most revealing quotes, in order of seniority, from each of the justices who spoke at the argument (Justice Thomas was silent), along with their central concern and contribution to the debate.
Family Studies: Online craft marketplace Etsy, which is powered primarily by women, joined the Nasdaq exchange on April 16. Market watchers greeted its early success with surprise—which speaks volumes about how they, as well as major media outlets and government officials, think about women. However, as the market launch demonstrated, some widely held assumptions, like mothers’ work-related preferences, are based more on presumption than fact.
The Daily Signal: The Supreme Court’s oral arguments on same-sex marriage drew supporters and opponents to Washington, D.C. Jeff Mateer, general counsel for the Liberty Institute, and Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, were inside the courtroom. After the court adjourned, they spoke to The Daily Signal about their perspectives on the case.
National Law Journal (Subscription Required): Columbia Law School Professor Suzanne Goldberg and Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law Professor John Eastman, authors of opposing amicus briefs on same-sex marriage, were in the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to hear oral arguments. Each had very different opinions about the persuasiveness of the lawyers and their effect on the justices.
NRB Today: NRB responded yesterday to the admission by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli to the U.S. Supreme Court that if “gay marriage” is deemed to be a constitutional right, then the tax-exempt status of religious institutions could be at risk.
Public Discourse: Rather than rush to a fifty-state “solution” on marriage policy for the entire country, the Supreme Court should allow the laboratories of democracy the time and space to see how redefining marriage will impact society as a whole.
The Washington Examiner: As we contemplate these historic arguments and attempt to navigate the frenzy surrounding them, let’s do our best to listen carefully to all of the voices that have spoken to the nine justices.
States could force Catholic priests to perform same-sex ‘marriages’ or lose legal status: Justice Scalia
Life Site News: “The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jeremy Tedesco said. “The reality is it’s already happening.”
Listen to the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges (the same-sex marriage case at the Supreme Court)
The two questions are as follows: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Family Studies: The prevalence of divorce in contemporary American society means that divorce and its effects on adults and children are among the most frequently studied topics in the family sciences—and a growing segment of literature in this area suggests that the popular image of a failing marriage is wrong.
First Things: In order to get a sense of the therapeutic implications of this growing movement, First Things talked to Mark A. Yarhouse, professor of psychology and the Hughes Endowed Chair at Regent University.
Christianity Today: We will see more challenges to the florists, the bakers, and the pizza crust makers. And more opportunities for witness.
Christian News Network: The U.S. Supreme Court was divided on Tuesday as it heard oral argument over states’ rights surrounding the definition of marriage, with some justices expressing a hesitancy to change the definition for one particular type of relationship.
Public Discourse: Finding a right to same-sex marriage in the Fourteenth Amendment would threaten the religious liberty of citizens and organizations who support marriage and silence or chill the speech of dissenters.
Aleteia: “I don’t believe the seeds for 1968 were planted in 1776,” said Robert P. George in a Facebook discussion. The McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton, he’s the conservative Christian academic whose name is recognized by New York Timesreporters, and the most hopeful Christian public intellectual I know.
The Daily Signal: Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court were excellent. There were so many good points made about what marriage is and why redefining marriage would cause harms.
The Atlantic: If the Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans, it may well do so on the grounds that they violate the dignity of gay couples. And although proponents of marriage equality may cheer a decision along these lines when it is delivered, the expansion of the constitutional right to dignity may produce far-reaching consequences that they will later have cause to regret.
The Washington Times: Caleb Dalton, litigation counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said in an interview that the oral arguments made by the defendants would center on the Windsor decision, which said that the state of New York had the right to define marriage as it had voted, and the federal marriage legislation had no bearing on that decision.
WND: Their pro-bono attorney is Anna Harmon of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a consortium of attorneys fighting for religious liberty. D. James Kennedy and others founded it in 1994.
Christian News Wire: Institute on Religion and Democracy Evangelical Program Director Chelsen Vicari spoke today at the Rally to Stand for Marriage in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. The rally was a multi-organizational effort coordinated by Alliance Defending Freedom from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time, coinciding with oral arguments before the Court.
National Law Journal: The U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared cautious about changing thousands of years of tradition by requiring states to license same-sex marriage.
Public Discourse: According to a recent amicus brief by scholars of liberty, same-sex marriage is not only counter to the Supreme Court’s long line of personal liberty cases, it may even be prohibited by them.
The Wall Street Journal (Accessible via Google): If the Supreme Court holds that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, odds are Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, will cast the deciding vote.
The Gospel Coalition: As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in DeBoer v. Snyder, it’s worth asking the question: Is there any reason a decent, rational, non-bigoted American might oppose same-sex marriage? Just as important: Are there any decent, rational, non-bigoted Americans who are willing to consider why other Americans might have plausible reasons for opposing same-sex marriage? This blog post is my way of saying “yes” to the first question and “let’s hope so” to the second.
The Federalist: I want nothing in this world more than to be a father. Yet I can’t bring myself to celebrate same-sex marriage.
The Washington Post: The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in the four cases consolidated under the title of Obergefell v. Hodges, to consider whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal. Justices appeared somewhat split along ideological lines in their questioning. (Audio may not work on all devices.)
Time: Tony Perkins, the head of the conservative Family Research Council, says that if the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, the proper strategy is to mount a campaign against judicial overreach modeled after the pro-life campaign against the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which found women had a constitutional right to an abortion.
The New York Times: The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed deeply divided about one of the great civil rights issues of the age: whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
Russell Moore: I am a conscientious dissenter from the Sexual Revolution. I don’t think the Court should redefine marriage, because I don’t think the Court invented marriage in the first place.
Religious News Services (Reuters): Republican presidential hopefuls in Iowa and elsewhere have recently begun sounding a call to arms to Christian conservatives, describing what they say is an urgent threat to religious liberty.
Daily Signal: Less than a day after a donation fund was set up for the Oregon bakers who the state recommended be fined $135,000 for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, the crowdfunding website, GoFundMe, has shut it down.
National Review: Religious institutions could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status due to their beliefs about marriage if the Supreme Court holds that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed, President Obama’s attorney acknowledged to the Supreme Court today.
Daily Signal: Oral arguments at the Supreme Court today were fascinating. Over two and a half hours of discussion about whether the Constitution requires all 50 states to treat same-sex relationships as marriages highlighted one essential truth: There are good policy arguments on both sides of the marriage debate and the Constitution doesn’t take sides in it.
The Washington Post: The Supreme Court Tuesday considered whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, raising questions about how it would affect religious institutions.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jim Campbell: “The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws. In today’s oral arguments, Justice Kennedy said that this definition has been with us for millennia and acknowledged that it is very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we…know better.’ The bottom line is that nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage. As we approach decision day, we remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will follow what it has previously said – that states have the ‘essential authority to define the marital relation’ – and uphold the freedom of the people to affirm marriage as a man-woman union.”
One News Now: Jeremy Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom says the bill did not violate Title IX regulations as some argued.
Life Site News: While several pastors spoke fervently about the relationship between God and marriage, and the relationship between marriage and the state of America, perhaps the most passionate of any speaker was Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Matthew Bowman. Following in the steps of other speakers in referring to Supreme Court cases where decisions caused harm to the nation — King referenced Dred Scott, which he said helped lead the nation to its Civil War — Bowman spoke of the deadly consequences of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.
Baptist Press: Ken Connelly, legal counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said the Sixth Circuit opinion “gets it right on almost every issue.”
13 News Now (AP): Also at the Supreme Court Tuesday will be people who support traditional marriage. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and the Alabama Attorney General’s Office submitted one of the more than 60 briefs filed in defense of the marriage laws challenged in the cases before the High Court — Obergefell v. Hodges and three other cases consolidated with it.
U.S. Supreme Court hears Ohio gay marriage case today: Five things to look for during the arguments (photos)
Cleveland.com: More conservative jurists hope the court will use the case to affirm states’ rights to set their own marriage policies. “Windsor doesn’t mandate same-sex marriage in every state, but does require the federal government to honor the marriages of those residing in same-sex marriage states,” Austin Nimocks of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom wrote on SCOTUSblog, concluding: “the marriage debate belongs to the people, and not the courts.”
Chron (AP): Conservative political groups, including Concerned Women for America and the Alliance for Defending Freedom, argued that allowing same-sex marriage violates religious freedoms. Republican Study Committee Chairman Bill Flores, R-Texas, said the voters, not courts, should get to define marriage.
The Washington Post: The Alliance Defending Freedom showed up early with a small podium, ponchos, doughnuts, a pallet of bottled water, Band-Aids, avocados, knives for cutting avocados, sweatshirts, blankets and tarps. They wanted to have enough stuff to share, one staffer said, even with their opponents. (“We’re not really enemies,” she said. “We’re just on different sides.”)
The Washington Times: Caleb Dalton, litigation counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said in an interview that the oral arguments made by the defendants would center on the Windsor decision, which said that the State of New York had the right to define marriage as it had voted, and the the federal marriage legislation had no bearing on that decision.
Cain TV: Let’s review: If you own a bakery and you don’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, you will be fined and/or sent to re-education sessions. You must take part in the accommodation of the gay wedding in any way the state deems appropriate. You will not say no.
Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s a fact of biology that children are the product of sexual relationships between men and women. And historically, those sexual relationships were reserved for marriage—when one man and one woman were committed to each other for life.
Alliance Defending Freedom: This past Saturday I was at the March for Marriage in D.C. Being there conjured up the old feelings of praying outside of those abortion clinics as a kid. There was a sudden and emotional appreciation that came over me for my parents, as I realized that my desire to stand up for the family and for my faith has been passed down from them. Growing up Hispanic, faith was more than what we did on Sundays. Faith and family were indistinguishable parts of our culture.
Christian Today: Two churches in North Carolina were recently targeted by pro LGBT vandals who caused thousands of dollars’ worth of damages.
Oklahoma legislature passes two bills protecting clergy, judges, and churches that object to same-sex marriage
Religion Clause: The Oklahoma legislature this week gave final passage to HB 1007 (full text) protecting clergy and religious organizations that object to same-sex marriage. The bill provides that clergy shall not be required to solemnize marriages that violate their conscience or religious beliefs. Religious organizations shall not be required to provide religious-based services designed for engaged or married couples or couples where the services are directly related to solemnizing, celebrating, strengthening or promoting a marriage, such as religious counseling programs, courses, retreats and workshops, if doing so would violate the conscience or religious beliefs of an official of the organization. Clergy and officials of religious organizations are immunized from civil liability for refusing to solemnize or furnish services for such marriages.
Breitbart: Pastors from all over Texas are descending upon the Texas Capitol today to support a Texas House Bill that protects the rights of certain religious organizations and individuals when refusing to perform or to recognize a gay marriage.