Tag Archives: State: California

CNN via WYFF4.com : “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process, ” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks told CNN’s State of the Union. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.” | KSAT.com carries a related CNN video report that includes Austin R. NImocks.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys who are co-counsel in defense of California’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage will be available for media interviews at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday following oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

SCOTUS Blog: This is the first of two articles examining the arguments made in the Supreme Court’s two same-sex marriage cases by the “friends of the Court” — the amici who have filed written briefs, a lengthy list.  This article deals with the amici arguments in the case of California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriages,Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144), to be heard at 10 a.m. on Tuesday.  Part II, to appear Monday, will cover the amici arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act case, United States v. Windsor (12-307), set for a hearing at 10 a.m. on Wednesday.

Heritage Foundation: What’s at stake in the marriage debate? Why does marriage matter for public policy? What would be the consequences of redefining marriage? Ryan T. Anderson, author of an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court on the marriage cases, Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, and Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of National Tea Party Patriots and a gay man against redefining marriage will speak on the legal, policy, and cultural issues at the heart of these cases.

Geoffrey Fowler at WSJ via Yahoo News: “What we don’t need at this juncture of a very young and significant debate on marriage is the Supreme Court presenting the nation with a 50-state solution that redefines marriage and removes the question from the hands of the people,” said Austin R. Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who is one of the lawyers defending California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

CNN (includes video): “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process, ” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks told CNN’s State of the Union. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Mercury News: Join Mintz at noon Monday for an online chat with Byron Babione, counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group defending Proposition 8, and Chris Stoll, staff attorney with National Center for Lesbian Rights at www.mercurynews.com | Follow the chat here.

World: Steve Jordahl is a reporter for The World and Everything in It. Mary Reichard is a legal affairs correspondent for The World and Everything in It. She spoke with two lawyers who filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of DOMA and Proposition 8: Jim Campbell of Alliance Defending Freedom and Lori Windham of The Becket Fund.

MyDesert.com (includes video): Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal ministry that is helping to defend Prop. 8 on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, outlined its rebuttals to the plaintiffs’ arguments in a final brief submitted Tuesday to the Supreme Court. “The wisest course is for the court to resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage,” senior counsel Austin R. Nimocks said in a release. “Advocates for redefining marriage should not be allowed to sidestep the democratic process to accomplish their political objectives.” (web page 7)

Cheryl Wetzstein at the Washington Times: Marriage — i.e., the legal union of one man and one woman — “is the cornerstone of Western civilization,” Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is helping defend Proposition 8, said during a Tuesday briefing hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

Jennifer Marshall at Heritage Foundation: But we have continued to give unique status in law to the union of a man and a woman—the only relationship that produces children—as a permanent, monogamous, and exclusive relationship. We uphold this ideal in the interest of children, of limited, constitutional government, and of America’s future. That’s a message Heritage will convey at an event today featuring Ryan Anderson, Kellie Fiedorek of the Alliance Defending Freedom, and tea party activist Doug Mainwaring, a gay man committed to maintaining the definition of marriage because of its importance for children. Tomorrow, we’ll be joining many other Americans gathering on the National Mall for the March for Marriage.

WGNTV.com Chicago: “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process, ” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks told CNN’s State of the Union. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

NBC Nightly News reports on the litigation. Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Austin R. Nimocks appears in the video.

Heritage Foundation (includes video): hose pressing the Supreme Court to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 essentially argue that marriage as we’ve always known it is not constitutional. But redefining marriage would make marriage about the desires of adults rather than the well-being of children. That was the takeaway from a media briefing Tuesday at the National Press Club featuring Heritage’s Ryan T. Anderson, Claremont Institute legal scholar John C. Eastman, and Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Austin R. Nimocks (who is also co-counsel in the Prop 8 case).

The News-Herald: Jim Campbell, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which backs Proposition 8, stresses the political battle over gay marriage is “at some point in the middle. … The Supreme Court should resist demands to prematurely end the national debate.”

Warren Richey of Christian Science Monitor on Yahoo News: “We don’t think this debate should be prematurely ended by a decree from this court or any other court,” says Austin Nimocks, sen-ior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which supports the traditional definition of marriage. “We are asking the Supreme Court to continue to allow communities to go through that [political] process and continue to debate the meaning of marriage, its impact on those communities, and how it should be defined.”

Christian Post: CBS’ “Face the Nation” came the closest to providing a balanced view. The discussion had three people in favor of same-sex marriage, NFL football player Brendon Ayanbadejo, Freedom to Marry’s Evan Wolfson and conservative columnist David Frum, and two people opposed to same-sex marriage, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and Alliance Defending Freedom’s Austin Nimocks. Host Bob Schieffer, though, did a better job than his colleagues at providing both sides about equal time. Also unlike the hosts on the other networks, Schieffer provided Nimocks and Perkins adequate time to present their arguments without interruption.

Religion Link: The Alliance Defense Fund opposes same-sex marriage and efforts to circumvent DOMA. Contact 480-444-0020 or email through the website.

Richard Land at Baptist Press: I believe they are going to seek to thread the needle and split the difference. Such decision making by the Supreme Court would leave the issue of defining marriage within the borders of each state (such as California), but at the same time declaring that if a state (such as New York) defines same-sex marriage as marriage, the federal government (including the IRS) would defer to each particular state’s definition of marriage when determining eligibility for benefits.

USCCB: On Tuesday, March 26, a March for Marriage will take place in our nation’s capital to show citizens’ support for upholding marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Information about the March can be found at
the March for Marriage website. Those who cannot participate in person are encouraged to participate spiritually by offering prayers and fasting on March 26.

Metro Weekly: Dueling rallies to be held the week of March 26 are set to highlight the public marriage-equality debate as the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court hear opening arguments in two cases that could prove crucial to the fate of the LGBT-rights movement in the United States.

WFAA.com: CBS’ “Face the Nation” — Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.; Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry; Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council; Austin Nimocks, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom; Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendan Ayanbadejo, an advocate of same-sex marriage.

John C. Eastman, Ilya Shapiro, Dale A. Carpenter, Nelson Lund are featured in this Federalist Society Symposium.

The Center for AZ Policy provides more details.

SCOTUS Blog: Spectators seeking to get into the Supreme Court chamber for next week’s oral arguments on the same-sex marriage cases began lining up on Thursday at about 9 p.m. — more than four days before the first argument, Tuesday at 10 a.m.

Wall Street Journal: Fresh off his victory litigating the 2000 presidential-election case, Bush v. Gore, Theodore Olson was named President George W. Bush’s solicitor general and began looking for a brilliant young conservative to be his deputy. The job went to Paul Clement . . .

Richard Epstein at Hoover Institution Journal: A sound originalist approach on this matter looks to both text of the Constitution and the context in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. By that originalist standard, the constitutional case for gay marriage is dead on arrival for two related reasons . . . The only reason why Perry and Windsor are taking center stage is that the Supreme Court totally and emphatically rejected its earlier framework in the 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which, by a six-to-three vote, unceremoniously overruled Bowers. The moral authority of the state gave way to individualism and liberty. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the six-member majority . . .

Mercury News: Join a moderated discussion at noon PDT on Monday, March 25, about Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Joining Bay Area News Group reporter Howard Mintz will be Byron Babione, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is helping defend Proposition 8 and supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and Christopher Stoll, a staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights. (email reminder signup at the link)

Ryan Anderson at CNN: Court shouldn’t rewrite law on gay marriage

“Pediatrics Group Backs Gay Marriage, Saying It Helps Children,” proclaims a headline in The New York Times. But the advocacy group presented no new studies, no new data, to support this claim. And the studies the group cites have been shown to be insufficient to come to this conclusion about same-sex parenting. Turns out the press release, picked up nationwide, was a PR stunt aimed at influencing the Supreme Court.

Ed Whelan at NRO: Michael McConnell has asked me to post this response to my critique of his Wall Street Journal op-ed, and I am happy to do so . . .

Ed Whelan at NRO: I never imagined that I would write a post bearing this title. If you had shown me the text of this Wall Street Journal op-ed and asked me to guess the author, I never would have guessed Michael McConnell, the usually brilliant conservative law professor at Stanford. Some comments . . .

Mike McConnell at Wall Street Journal: For most Americans, the Supreme Court cases being heard on Tuesday and Wednesday next week are about same-sex marriage. But the cases—Hollingsworth v. Perry (the Proposition 8 case from California) and U.S. v. Windsor (the Defense of Marriage Act case)—also are a test of the nation’s democratic and decentralized constitutional structure. These cases thus are not just about marriage. They are about how we reach decisions regarding matters of deep moral significance in our federal republic.

Citizen Link: Sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the March 26 event will provide a platform for people to show their support for God’s design for the institution. Dozens of organizations and ministries across the country — including Focus on the Family and CitizenLink — have signed on as co-sponsors.

More information here.

JCOnline.com: Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is the primary author of briefs submitted by states in support of California’s gay marriage ban and of a federal law defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

SCOTUS Blog: Renewing the argument that the Supreme Court should pass up the opportunity to rule now on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a Court-appointed legal adviser on Wednesday suggested that it would not be long before the issue would come up again in a proper case. Harvard law professor Vicki C. Jackson, in a reply brief, argued anew that neither the federal government nor the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives have brought a proper case to the Court.

Christian Post: Austin Nimocks, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom who will serve as co-counsel defending Proposition 8 during oral arguments at the Supreme Court, agreed. “Those arguing for same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court are arguing that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the U.S. Constitution, which means that it is deeply rooted in our country’s history and traditions,” Nimocks said. “Our argument is very simple – that’s not true. “You can’t find in the history of our country and our Constitution a deeply rooted tradition and history of same-sex marriage. Marriage is what it has always been, since the beginning of time. The Supreme Court has acknowledged marriage 14 times in its prior jurisprudence. It has rejected a claim for same-sex marriage already, back in the 70s. And so, in no circumstances can our opponents make the constitutional case that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the U.S. Constitution.”

SCOTUS Blog: The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon released the list of lawyers who will argue in the two-week sitting that begins on Monday, including the line-up of attorneys who will argue the same-sex marriage cases in the second week of that sitting. The schedule for the marriage cases appears below the jump

CBN (includes video): Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Austin Nimocks is on the legal team defending traditional marriage before the High Court. “Marriage is what it has always been since the beginning of time: the union of a man and a woman,” he said. “That’s how the Supreme Court has acknowledged marriage 14 times in its prior jurisprudence.” But if the pro-gay side triumphs, Nimocks said what’s at stake is whether the American people themselves get to have the final say about what marriage is “or whether the Supreme Court is going to impose a radical new definition of marriage upon all 50 states and the four U.S. territories.” “Americans want to engage in this debate,” he continued. “We’ve been doing it for the last 10 years.” “Americans care about this, and what we need is for the Supreme Court to keep its hands off marriage right now,” he said. “Let Americans continue to debate this through our democratic institutions.”

SCOTUS Blog: Lawyers for the sponsors of California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage suggested in a new Supreme Court filing on Tuesday that their case might be sent back to the state supreme court to further analyze their right to defend that measure’s constitutionality.

Boston Globe: The Supreme Court will release audio recordings of next week’s arguments in two gay marriage cases just a few hours after they conclude.

Christian Post: Where is tolerance? Where is diversity? Where is equality? If you live in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington, or Massachusetts and have a child who experiences unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA), soon you may not find tolerance, diversity, or equality there. That’s because activists in these states are carefully working with sympathetic members of their state legislatures to take away your parental rights and your child’s ability to receive treatment for unwanted homosexual feelings.

KTLA.com (includes video): Some students at a school in Hesperia say they’re being bullied, and they say those bullies are their teachers and administrators.

NY Times: Ban on Gay Marriage Led Lawyers to Shift Role
John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., and the chairman of the National Association for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said government officials in the two cases had demonstrated “a cavalier attitude toward their duties to enforce the law.” He was particularly critical of Mr. Herrera’s suit, which followed a brief period in 2004 during which Gavin Newsom, then the mayor of San Francisco and now the state’s lieutenant governor, instructed city officials here to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. “It was exhibiting lawlessness,” Professor Eastman said.

Press Democrat: Viewing a public file at the Santa Rosa courthouse will cost $10 under a proposal from the state’s judicial branch that is drawing fire from critics who say it will limit access to public information.

Religion Clause Blog: Oral arguments are scheduled for March 26 in Hollingsworth v. Perry, and on March 27 in United States v. Windsor. These dates are the first two days of Passover– holidays in the Jewish calendar on which traditional Jews abstain from work.

Baptist Press (Alliance Defending Freedom video embedded): A prominent Christian legal group is urging believers nationwide to pray as the U.S. Supreme Court gets ready to decide the legal definition of marriage . . . Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has been heavily involved in defending the traditional definition of marriage, is in the midst of a “nine weeks of prayer for marriage” initiative that includes weekly downloadable printouts naming attorneys and Supreme Court justices for whom to pray.

Yahoo News: In the annals of the Most Disastrous Shows Ever, there is a new entry. Folk-rock singer Michelle Shocked had the plug pulled on her concert Sunday night after launching into an anti-gay-marriage speech that led most of the audience to walk out.

Defenders of California’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday that concisely answers the arguments of those attacking the amendment. The brief is the final one that will be filed before oral arguments scheduled for March 26 in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

MO Family Policy Council: “The wisest course is for the Supreme Court to resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage,” says Austin Nimocks, who filed one of the pro-Proposition 8 briefs on behalf of the Alliance Defending Freedom. “Californians voted for marriage, and the court should respect their freedom to affirm the fundamental building block of our society.” “Marriage between a man and a woman is a bedrock social institution that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization,” Nimocks continues. “The freedom of the people to uphold this vital institution should not be taken away.” . . . The Family Research Council has produced an excellent bulletin insert about the marriage issue which we strongly encourage you to use in your local church to promote awareness and prayer for this event. It can be downloaded by using the following link. You will find it as the first item listed under “Resources” on the web page: Stand for Marriage Bulletin Insert

George F. Will at Washington Post: When on March 26 the Supreme Court hears oral arguments about whether California’s ban on same-sex marriages violates the constitutional right to “equal protection of the laws,” these arguments will invoke the intersection of law and social science. The court should tread cautiously, if at all, on this dark and bloody ground.

Nathaniel Frank at Slate: “His rejection of the social science on gay marriage is incoherent, embarrassing, and anti-gay.”

Sacramento Bee: A San Francisco supervisor wants to create a 25-foot buffer zone around Planned Parenthood and other clinics that are the target of anti-abortion protesters.

Ryan T. Anderson at Heritage Foundation (includes Jim DeMint video): Working with the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Family Research Council, Heritage has produced a short pamphlet making the case for marriage in everyday language. It helps you articulate what your heart knows.

SCOTUS Blog: The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to let an Obama administration lawyer take part in the argument on March 26 on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in that state.

Think Progress: This is the old “fatherless” canard, in which the conclusions from studies about single mothers are used to argue against committed lesbian parents, even though not one of these “fatherless” studies included a same-sex couple. If Will had thoroughly read the full decision he cites here (notably via a link on the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom’s website), he would have seen that Lamb clarified this very point in his testimony.

Sioux City Journal: At least one of the ads contains a quote attributed to the militant Islamic group Hamas that reads: “Killing Jews is worship that brings us closer to Allah.”

Wall Street Journal (via Google): Chief Justice John Roberts preserved one of President Barack Obama’s main legacies—and helped forge his own—by largely upholding the president’s health-care law last year. Now, the two leaders’ places in history are entwined again, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear two gay-marriage cases later this month.

Baptist Press at Townhall: “The institution of marriage is the foundation of society, and on March 26-27, the public purpose of marriage will be at stake before the United States Supreme Court in two equally but critical cases to potentially reaffirm or redefine marriage in America,” ADF’s Alan Sears, president and CEO, says in a video at the website. “We’re asking you, your friends, family, neighbors and church community, to join Alliance Defending Freedom and our allies in faithfully praying … for different people and different things leading up to the Supreme Court arguments.”

Lyle Denniston at Constitution Check: Article II, defining the “executive power” of the national government, says that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But the Constitution itself is obviously one of the laws undoubtedly within the president’s care, and the presidential oath makes that a binding duty. What does the occupant of that office do if legal advisers claim that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional? Does it still get “faithfully” enforced?

Religion Clause Blog: A lawsuit filed in a California federal district court this week by a Yuba City man alleges that California’s ban on assault weapons, as well as its ban on carrying loaded firearms in one’s vehicle and certain other places, violates the free exercise rights of plaintiff, a Sikh.  The complaint (full text) in Khalsa v. State of California, (ED CA, filed 3/12/2013) alleges . . .

AP: These varied family portraits of the justices are somewhat at odds with the arguments of gay marriage opponents who stress the unique ability of heterosexual couples to have babies as a reason to uphold bans on same-sex marriage.

Jack Balkin at Balkinization: At a meeting of the Supreme Court Clinic this evening, we discussed the upcoming arguments in the Marriage Cases. We considered what arguments would likely weigh most heavily with the Justices. I noted that one of the strongest influences on the Justices, and especially Justice Kennedy, was how they believed their decisions would look in in ten or twenty year’s time. Would they be seen as defenders of liberty and equality, or would they be viewed in hindsight as defenders of prejudice, fighting against the tide of progress?

Ed Whelan at National Review: There is a lot wrong with the Supreme Court brief filed by Ted Olson and David Boies on behalf of the anti-Prop 8 plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Prop 8’s proponents will of course address the major argument flaws in their reply brief (due March 19). In a few posts, I’m instead going to expose some of the lesser myths and distortions that the brief propagates. Let’s get started . . .

Sacramento Bee: In a Feb. 26 letter addressed to Mayor Susan Rohan, the Freedom From Religion Foundation said a message sent from a city employee’s official email endorsing the cook-off and the fact that it will occur at a city-owned facility “gives the appearance that this event is co-sponsored by the City of Roseville.”
“Even if the City of Roseville is not a sponsor of this event, it is inappropriate for a government employee to use his or her official email to promote events benefiting a religious ministry,” the letter reads.

LifeSiteNews: A 24-year-old man who has been living as a woman has sued California Baptist University for $500,000 in damages after the school expelled him for lying on his application paperwork.

Reuters: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, the lesbian couple at the center of a major gay rights case set to go before the Supreme Court this month, were in many ways a typical New York power couple.

Keen News Service: It is hard to overstate the potential impact of the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning marriage for same-sex couples. The primary questions posed by the two cases—Hollingsworth v. Perry involving Proposition 8 and U.S. v. Windsor involving the Defense of Marriage Act—could lead to rulings that dramatically advance the equality of LGBT people under the law. But the Supreme Court may end up issuing no ruling in either case.  How is that possible?

Business Insider: But neither of those cases dealt with marriage, and Kennedy made some remarks last week that have some members of the gay community on edge.

The Recorder: Next month, five SOCE counselors will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to enjoin the law as an unconstitutional intrusion on the doctor-patient relationship. Although associated with conservative Christian causes, their attorneys come armed with a powerful liberal precedent: a 2002 Ninth Circuit ruling that forbade the government from cracking down on doctors for recommending medical marijuana.

Scholars have filed more than 50 amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging it to uphold California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While the media seems intent on ignoring these briefs and hyping the briefs on the other side, the sheer number and quality of the briefs in defense of laws recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman is impressive.

Wilson Times: A Supreme Court justice has responded to an 11-year-old Wilson girl’s heartfelt appeal for federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

AP: A decision is not expected until the end of June, but accountants and tax attorneys anticipating the 18-year-old law’s demise are already encouraging same-sex couples like Raphael and Meyer to seek prospective tax refunds, back retirement payments and other spousal subsidies they may have been denied.

The Economist: The problem is that nine states (plus Washington, DC) allow gay marriage, and three others recognise gay unions solemnised elsewhere. This conflict between federal and state law creates all sorts of headaches, such as separate payroll systems and differing tax treatment of health-care benefits. “Even sophisticated employers struggle,” the brief says.