Tag Archives: Topic: Marriage

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.

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

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

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

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

CBN (includes video): Crews, who heads the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said DOMA limited the impact when the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy was lifted and gays were allowed to serve openly in the armed forces.

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

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

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

On the eve of a historic debate in the U.S. Supreme Court over gay marriage, three couples in Utah filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to declare unconstitutional any law in the predominately Mormon state barring same-sex marriage. The complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court for Utah . . .

Ed Whelan at NRO: The fact that DOMA defines marriage and spouse for purposes of provisions of federal law does not mean that it regulates marriage and intrudes on state authority over marriage. For anyone confused on this point, consider this . . .

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

Wall Street Journal Video: Proposition 8 co-counselor Austin Nimocks discusses what the gay marriage case in the high court hinges on, and what he thinks are the consequences of the ban getting struck down.

PBS (video and transcript): We return to today’s same-sex marriage debate with one of our own, featuring two attorneys who were at the court today, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who supports overturning the gay marriage ban, and Austin Nimocks, counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which supports Proposition 8.

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

LifeSiteNews: A small breakaway church group has been banned from using a meeting room at a hotel in Aberdeen over their opposition to same-sex “marriage” and homosexual activity. The Gilcomston church were turned away from the Copthorne Hotel, where they were to hold their first communion service on March 10th , the Christian Institute reports.

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

Available here.

Ed Whelan at NRO: Justice Kennedy’s questions and comments are not encouraging, as they reflect a fundamental confusion that DOMA involves the exercise of an authority to regulate marriage. See, e.g., p. 76: “The question is whether or not the Federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage.” 2. Some excellent questioning by the Chief Justice ought to dispel Kennedy’s confusion. . . .

Ed Whelan at NRO offers this description of today’s arguments and what to watch for.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog: If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence. That was the overriding impression after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The How Appealing Blog links to numerous reports on today’s arguments in Windsor v. United States.

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

Austin R. Nimocks on the Hugh Hewitt Show | MP3 audio 5:36 mins

NY Times: A majority of the justices on Wednesday questioned the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, as the Supreme Court took up the volatile issue of same-sex marriage for a second day.

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

One News Now: In the meantime, Donnelly’s group is working closely with Alliance Defending Freedom to thwart efforts to violate state law or change the law through litigation.

MSNBC (includes video): The co-counsel for the legal team defending California’s Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court Tuesday, Austin Nimocks, called for the court to “let the American people deal with [the issue of gay marriage] through their democratic institutions.” [more]

Steven Smith at Public Discourse: Debates about marriage will only be cluttered up, and decisions confounded, if the issue is framed in the question-begging terms of “marriage equality.”

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

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

One News Now: Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jim Campbell explains why the case is important to those who hold a traditional view on marriage. “If the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned, it will send the message that the government can no longer affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” he laments. “It will essentially say that even though throughout history diverse cultures and faiths have upheld marriage as the ideal, as the union of a man and a woman, it will say that here in America we can no longer do that.”

Ken Klukowski at Breitbart: Prop 8 is being defended by Charles Cooper and the Alliance Defending Freedom. On the merits, Cooper began that, “people throughout the country engage in an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. The question before this Court is whether the Constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all fifty states.”

Christian Post: Speaking to Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Austin Nimocks, vice president of the Alliance Defending Freedom and co-counsel for Proposition 8 supporters, believes the court shouldn’t “impose a redefinition of marriage upon all Americans,” and added that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right. “Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions,” Nimocks said. “Same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions.”

KCENTV.com (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 said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

WTKR.com: The Human Rights Campaign Facebook page asked people to wear red and to make their Facebook profiles red to show support for marriage equality . . . “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 said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Alan Sears at Alliance Defending Freedom: This week, and for the next several weeks, I’d like to ask you and your family to be in particular, faithful, fervent prayer for the future of your nation and for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as they rule on two major cases related to the legal definition of marriage in America.

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

LifeSiteNews: “I’m a Republican,” he said in rising cadences. “Let me say to my party: If you bail out on this issue, I will leave the party, and I will take as many people with me as I possibly can!” His speech seemed to take aim at the assessment of Republican strategist Karl Rove, who said on Sunday that he could see the next Republican presidenital candidate supporting gay “marriage.

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

Statesman.com: In December, conservative groups Texas Values and the Alliance Defending Freedom submitted a brief to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott asking that his office find the Pflugerville district and other government entities in violation of the state constitution.

MSNBC: “Justices aware of shift in national attitudes on same-sex marriage”
Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom talks about Tuesday’s arguments on Proposition 8 and describes the mood inside the court hearing.

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

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

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 said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

WPTV (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 said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Mainline Media News (text of the chat at the link): Join a moderated discussion at 3 p.m. ET 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 legal affairs writer 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.

OzarksFirst.com: “The big question going before the Supreme Court is whether or not the Supreme Court should impose a 50-state solution upon this entire country regarding the debate surrounding marriage,” says Austin Nimocks, with the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Audio here. Transcript here.

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

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

AP: South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson was expected to announce his retirement Tuesday, making the state the fifth where Democrats will have to defend a seat without an incumbent seeking re-election.

Austin R. Nimocks at Wall Street Journal (via Google): The Supreme Court is not the place to settle the country’s public-policy disputes. The court is not equipped to distill all of the competing concerns and interests over marriage into a comprehensive, nationwide policy.

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

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

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

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

More information here.

SCOTUS Blog: Below are answers to questions about how the cases will unfold over the next three months . . . As with health care last year, the ruling almost certainly will come at the end of the court’s term. The last week of June looks to be historic one way or another.

Politico: Republican fundraisers say the changing views of gay marriage in their party could unlock big money from GOP donors in places like New York, California and Florida — where some Republicans have kept their checkbooks closed over what they saw as misplaced priorities, at best, or intolerance, at worst, at the highest ranks of the party.

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

Baptist Press: Afterward, a co-counsel for Prop 8′s supporters said they have been asking the same question as Scalia.”At what point in time did marriage, this cornerstone of civilization and the bedrock of our society, all of a sudden become unconstitutional? And we don’t believe obviously it ever has,” Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told Baptist Press. “We believe Americans have the constitutional right to uphold, support and defend marriage as it has always been. And so we certainly are hopeful that the Supreme Court agrees with us.”

Matthew J. Frank at NRO: So the official position of the United States, in the Supreme Court anyway–notwithstanding the blandishments of the president of the United States–is that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right in those states that have civil unions, but that it is an “open question” whether this is so anywhere else. It might or might not be a constitutional right in, say, Mississippi, but it certainly is one in California!

Tampa Bay Times (includes video): “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” Austin Nimocks of the Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom said Sunday on CNN.

CNSNews: “Well, you’ve said — you’ve said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said. “And if you — if a state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct.

Ed Whelan at NRO: Some noteworthy question/comments by Justice Kennedy in the oral argument today:

KTLA 5 (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 said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

WPTV.com (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 said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Fox2Now.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 said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

SCOTUS Blog provides a growing list of links here.

Fox 31 Denver (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 said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Christian Institute: Alliance Defending Freedom, another group which supports traditional marriage, says gay marriage should not be imposed by the court. A spokesman said: “Californians and Congress voted for marriage, and the court should respect the freedom to affirm society’s fundamental building block. “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. “The freedom of the people to affirm this vital institution should not be taken away.”