Friends, The new Alliance Alert Daily Digest is finally here! You can subscribe to the daily e-mail here: Subscribe to our mailing list * indicates required Email Address * First Name * Last Name *
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Christianity Daily: Kristen Waggoner, from Alliance Defending Freedom, is representing Stutzman. Waggoner tells The Daily Signal that Stutzman may be forced to pay about seven figures worth of penalties. This amount would force Stutzman to lose her life savings along with her business.
The Washington Times: 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 Christian Institute: The Northern Ireland Assembly has rejected same-sex marriage legislation by an outright majority for the fourth time.
The Christian Institute: Church ministers who refuse to conduct same-sex weddings could be sued under European law, the Church of Scotland has warned.
National Review Online: There is a natural temptation on the part of Court-watchers to overread the import of snippets of oral argument.
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.”
One News Now: “We also have another update that occurred in that GoFundMe shut down Baronnelle’s link on the GoFundMe website saying that she can no longer raise funds to help her pay any judgments and rebuild her life after the case if she doesn’t prevail,” Waggoner explains.
Charisma News: Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed an appeal with a Washington court on behalf of florist Barronelle Stutzman.
CBN: A Washington flower shop owner who lost a 2013 lawsuit over her refusal to provide services for a same-sex wedding is appealing to the state Supreme Court.
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.
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: Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told the outlet that she believes homosexual activists are seeking to bully and shut down Christians by any means possible.
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.
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.
Yakima Herald: “The message that the attorney general and the ACLU have sent to the people of Washington in these two lawsuits is quite clear: surrender your religious liberty and freedom of speech, or face personal and professional ruin,” Kristen Waggoner, one of Stutzman’s attorneys, said in a statement Monday.
WND: A GoFundMe accountraised in excess of $123,000 for her, but Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Stutzman warned that the precedent – not the dollar figure – is the problem.
The Christian Post: The amount of which Stutzman will be ordered to pay is yet to be determined, as the court will let the appeal process play out. However, Stutzman’s lawyer, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kristen Waggoner, indicated on multiple occasions that the outcome could cause Stutzman “personal and financial ruin.”
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.
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.”
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.
KVEW TV: The Alliance Defending Freedom, the non-profit legal organization representing Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, has filed an appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court.
The Bellingham Herald (Tri-City Herald): “The message that the attorney general and the ACLU have sent to the people of Washington in these two lawsuits is quite clear: surrender your religious liberty and freedom of speech, or face personal and professional ruin,” Kristen Waggoner, one of Stutzman’s attorneys, said in a statement Monday.
The Washington Times: “The message that the attorney general and the ACLU have sent to the people of Washington in these two lawsuits is quite clear: Surrender your religious liberty and freedom of speech, or face personal and professional ruin,” ADF senior counsel Kristen Waggoner said.
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.
Daily Signal: Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, discussed the same-sex marriage case the Supreme Court will hear this week and Bruce Jenner’s interview announcing he is identifying as transgender.
The New York Times: In the months leading up to Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments on same-sex marriage, teams of gay rights lawyers and their allies have held countless strategy sessions, drafted scores of briefs and participated in intense moot courts.
Christian leaders affirm support for traditional marriage ahead of Supreme Court case; pastors say marriage must be preserved for sake of children
The Christian Post: Religious leaders from a wide array of denominations have released a joint statement reaffirming their support for traditional marriage ahead of the Supreme Court’s hearing of oral arguments on Tuesday.
Al Jazeera: Opponents of same-sex marriage, however, would fight that, said former Chapman University Law School dean John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. “If the only ground on which those marriage licenses were issued contrary to state law is the grounds that the state law was unconstitutional, a ground we would now know not to be true, those marriages were void under state law from the beginning,” he said.
Religion Clause: Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges and three related cases raising the question of whether states may constitutionally refuse to authorize same-sex marriages and, even if they may, whether a state may refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage validly performed in another state.
USA Today: My mother has been in a committed relationship with another woman for nearly 30 years. And I am the co-author of a Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of allowing states to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman in their laws.
The Daily Signal: As the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments about gay marriage Tuesday, it’s important to realize what the justices are actually being asked to settle.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner: “The message that the attorney general and the ACLU have sent to the people of Washington in these two lawsuits is quite clear: surrender your religious liberty and freedom of speech, or face personal and professional ruin. The trial court’s ruling affects all Americans who wish to remain free to live and work according to their faith without fear of punishment by the government. For that reason and others, we are requesting that the Washington Supreme Court grant direct review of Barronelle’s case.”
The Washington Times: The high court needs to “stick with” the logic of Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton’s majority opinion for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Caleb Dalton, litigation counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, said at a briefing at ADF offices Friday.
The Daily Signal: Kristen Waggoner, the attorney representing Stutzman on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Daily Signal that opponents are trying to bully people like Stutzman and the Kleins who are trying to live in accordance to their faith. “It’s not enough to have the government redefine marriage or to punish those who disagree,” she said.
ADF Media: Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys and others who support the people’s freedom to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman in their laws will be available for media interviews outside the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday. ADF and the Alabama Attorney General’s Office submitted one of the more than 60 briefs filed in defense of the marriage laws challenged in Obergefell v. Hodges and three other cases consolidated with it.
PBS: Same-sex marriage is already legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia, but the Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments that could make it legal in every state. “Christianity requires you to push back against the world,” says Collin Hansen of the Gospel Coalition. But author Matthew Vines suggests that once even some evangelicals are willing to change their position, then “it starts to significantly shift the dynamic.”
The Daily Signal: Jim DeMint, president of The Heritage Foundation, talks about why Americans should attend the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C., tomorrow.