Tag Archives: Category: Marriage and Family

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.

Albert Mohler at LifeSiteNews: The Court’s oral arguments on the DOMA case made the risks of moral argument clear. Justice Elena Kagan, pressing Attorney Paul Clement, the lawyer defending DOMA, asked him if Congress had made a moral judgment in adopting the Defense of Marriage Act. She then read from a House of Representatives report, issued in advance of the vote on DOMA, in which a clear moral argument was made. That report included these sentences: “Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, [and] moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.”

USA Today: The debate pits those who believe a person is born gay or lesbian versus those who think it is a choice.

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.

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

Adam J. MacLeod at Public Discourse: It’s a myth that marriage law “bans” same-sex relationships because it treats marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

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.

Patrick J. Buchanan at Human Events: A common faith and moral code once held this country together. But if we no longer stand on the same moral ground, after we have made a conscious decision to become the most racially, ethnically, culturally diverse people on earth, what in the world holds us together?

Politico: The continuing battle over gay marriage shouldn’t be equated with the civil rights movement, Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal organization, argued Sunday. “We understand historically that keeping the races apart is wrong. What marriage is about is bringing together the two opposite halves of humanity for a deep social good,” Nimocks said on CNN’s “State of the Union”.

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.

CBS: “It will be sued everywhere in the country if it’s declared to be a constitutional right,” said Krauthammer. “Because it would imply that anybody who opposes it does it only out of bigotry, for no other reason.”

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.

Mercury News: As the U.S. Supreme Court last week weighed its many options in deciding the historic legal battle over gay marriage, the justices repeatedly revealed they are as divided as the rest of the country on when — and whether — to end the furor and give gay and lesbian couples the right to clutch a marriage license.

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.

Washington Post: When asked about such research, a NOM rep cited a NOM poll, conducted by the Polling Company Inc., showing that 60 percent of respondents “agree” that marriage “is between one man and one woman.” Those results, noted the NOM rep, are consistent with the results collected by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is an “alliance-building legal ministry that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.”

Washington Examiner: Not even a million dollars could convince Lady Gaga to perform at last summer’s Republican National Convention.

David Stokes at Townhall: Evangelicals, those who take the Bible and their faith seriously, need to be reminded that when it comes to issues like gay marriage – even abortion – there is not really any middle ground with those on the left, even the so-called Christian left.

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 (includes video): Republican Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) said Sunday it was “inevitable” a GOP presidential candidate will one day support same-sex marriage, and that he would have no problem backing that candidate.

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?

Marty Lederman at SCOTUS Blog: Tom is right, however, that Tuesday’s oral argument raised the possibility of at least two additional outcomes: that the Court might dismiss the petition as improvidently granted – a “DIG”; or that the Court could vacate the court of appeals’ decision and remand the case for reconsideration in light of whatever the Court does in Windsor, the DOMA case. So which of these seven outcomes is most likely?

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.

KTAR: Ken Connelly, a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which defends the traditional definition of marriage, said he hopes the court will “let the debate continue where it should – at the people.”

Cronkite News: Ken Connelly, a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which defends the traditional definition of marriage, said he hopes the court will “let the debate continue where it should – at the people.”

Darwin, Grant R., Originalism and Same-Sex Marriage (February 15, 2013). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, Vol. 17.1, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2239782 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has repeatedly asserted that same-sex marriage is an easy …

ABC 15: In Hollingsworth, California’s governor and attorney general abdicated their duties by refusing to defend their state constitution. So pursuant to California law, the sponsors of Prop 8 — officially registered with the state — stepped in to defend the law, represented by Charles Cooper at Cooper Kirk and the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Matthew J. Franck at NRO: Of course, there are no good arguments for striking down section 3 of DOMA, either on equality or federalism grounds, and any ruling against it will produce needless mischief that the Act is designed, quite constitutionally, to prevent. But the Obama administration appears to want a particular kind of mischief, and so prefers the equality argument. Unlike Ms. Windsor’s counsel, it has no client in the case. It has only an ideological project of foisting same-sex marriage on the whole country, by hook or by crook.

Ed Whelan at NRO: So at least one of the six signatories to the amicus brief arguing that DOMA violates principles of federalism believes that if DOMA is invalidated on federalism grounds, the federal government (absent additional legislation) wouldn’t be deferring to the definition of marriage of the state in which a couple resides. Rather, under Somin’s view, if a same-sex couple lawfully marries in one state (whether or not it’s their state of residence) and lives or moves to a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, the federal government would provide federal marriage benefits to the same-sex couple in that state.

Alan Sears at Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s one thing to be thrown into a lions’ den … it’s another thing to walk freely into a den, knowing there be lions there. That’s what’s admirable about Ryan Anderson’s appearance, March 26, on CNN’s Piers Morgan Live program.

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.

Caleb Dalton at Townhall: California and other states should maintain the right to support marriage: a private promise between a man and a woman with a public purpose—the only relationship that combines love with the procreative possibility of life and the highest probability of stable, nurturing homes for children.

Newsbusters: Yet, let’s do a flashback to 2009. Kagan was nominated to be the United States Solicitor General — the officer of the executive branch who represents the United States in controversies and cases which go before the U.S. Supreme Court — and was specifically asked about DOMA and same sex marriage (emphasis mine):

Mark Steyn at NRO: Three weeks ago, I wrote: An institution that predates the United States by several millennia will be defined for a third of a billion people by whichever way Anthony Kennedy feels like swingin’ that morning. The universal deference to judicial supremacism is bizarre and unbecoming to a free people.

Erick Erickson at Red State: The kids these days on the right are full of a great libertarian notion that “hey, let’s just get the government out of marriage.” “Rock on,” say other libertarians.They then all smugly self-congratulate themselves, pat themselves on the back, and move on to other issues.What they ignore is that the left will never take marriage out of the hands of the government. The left cannot. But it goes beyond that . . .

Pat Buchanan at Human Events: What killed the New Majority? First, there was mass immigration . . . Second came party acquiescence in dropping half the nation off the income tax rolls, while making half dependent on government . . . Third, to accommodate its K Street bundlers, the GOP embraced globalism, empowering Corporate America to shed its U.S. labor force . . . Fourth, rather than bringing the troops home after our Cold War triumph and telling our allies the free rides were over, Bush I and II went crusading for a “New World Order” to “end tyranny in our world.” . . .

World Net Daily: Ken Connelly, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund told WND in an interview that he “would not characterize it that way,” but yet said, “There is an inherent contradiction” today because the executive branch is refusing to enforce and defend the law of the land. He said that is “incorrect” from a legal standpoint . . . The Supreme Court has made clear that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of public policy. Thus, Congress and President Clinton acted constitutionally when DOMA was enacted. The wisest course is for the Supreme Court to resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage. The court should respect the freedom of both Congress and citizens to affirm a bedrock social institution that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for the ADF. [more]

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:

C-FAM: In the current case before the Court on Proposition 8, which will decide whether the people of California were within their rights to place man-woman marriage in the California Constitution, claims of evolving international standards are being made.

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.”

Byron Babione of the Alliance Defending Freedom & Ron Prentice of Protect Marriage on the Janet Mefferd Show. | Broadcast featuring Byron Babione: MP3 audio 19:18 mins | The Broadcast featuring Ron Prentice is here.

Dan Caleb appeared on Dan Celia’s Financial Issues Program on AFR Radio with Guest Host Fred Jackson. | MP3 audio 17:15 mins

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.

John Eastman at Christian Post: The arguments reflect a serious misunderstanding of federalism, as a simple analogy will demonstrate. Property law, too, is a core function of state governments. But every year, millions of Americans deduct from their income taxes mortgage interest paid on their primary residence. Suppose Massachusetts were to redefine “residence” to include “automobile.” Under the faux federalism argument being urged to the Court, any Massachusetts citizen would thereby be able to deduct from their federal income taxes the interest on their automobile loan, and the federal government would have no power to define “residence” for federal purposes as it had always been understood, lest it intrude on that core state power. Such a conclusion is absurd.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-faux-federalism-argument-against-doma-92852/#1mgMGp1X6VD7LyKp.99

Noah Feldman at Bloomberg: To understand the mess that would result if the court struck down DOMA without finding a general right to same-sex marriage, consider what would happen if the federal government recognized marriages performed in states that allow gay couples to marry while continuing to deny marital status to couples in other states.

Gerard Bradley at SCOTUS Blog: The Justices should be wary of the “science” route. Consider just the leading decisions mentioned during the arguments as instructive parallels to the instant cases. Consider, for example, Plessy v. Ferguson. Justice Sotomayor said that the Court let segregation “perk” for fifty years, until the Justices finally pulled the plug in 1954. But the Plessy Court did not wait upon social scientific evidence of the negative effects of segregation, as Sotomayor implied that it did. That Court was instead party to – at best – a sordid compromise with entrenched racist elements in American society.

Advocates of same-sex marriages can’t back up claims about positive long-term effects.

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.

Anthony Esolen at Public Discourse: Lust perverts language itself, calling sex “safe” or “protected,” and cohabitation “honest,” and relationships “mutual,” which are nothing but forays into a jungle, where the strongest and most cunning survive.

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.