Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s days away: The Supreme Court’s marriage decision is expected to come down on June 29.
BuzzFeed: “Now that the legal bill behind that legal effort has been revealed to be more than $6 million, some are asking questions about the steep fee for the lawyers in the Prop 8 case — especially as a slate of new marriage cases advance through the courts and lawyers jockey for position to argue the one that they expect will ultimately deliver marriage equality to all 50 states. . . . AFER’s endeavor had a price tag of nearly $13 million, per AFER’s executive director, Adam Umhoefer — more than half of which went to Olson’s and Boies’ firms.”
Heritage: “Former House speaker Newt Gingrich blasted the pressure that forced Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich to resign last week as an example of the ‘new facism.’ Eich had donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, in 2008.”
Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy: “The fact that so many state gay marriage laws have been invalidated since Windsor increases the likelihood that this issue will return to the federal Supreme Court sooner rather than later. It could be that some of these lower court rulings will be reversed by appellate courts. Even so, the pro-gay marriage forces clearly have momentum, and it is likely that at least some federal appellate courts will uphold lower court rulings striking down gay marriage bans. If so, that would put further pressure on the Supreme Court to address the issue that it ducked when it dismissed Hollingsworth v. Perry on standing grounds last year.”
Jess Bravin at The Wall Street Journal: “[W]hile the high court’s formal holding may have been modest, lower courts have understood the opinion in U.S. v. Windsor, invalidating provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, to stand for a wider vision of constitutional equality—one that finds no justification for denying marital status to same-sex couples, period. In effect, the courts have been reading the Windsor case as if it upheld Judge Walker’s once-shunned opinion.”
Leah Farish at Tulsa World: “When did marriage between one man and one woman become unconstitutional? That is the question that nobody can answer or wants to answer. It’s a question that a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court asked during the much publicized oral arguments over marriage last year. The response of the lawyer arguing against California’s voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage was telling: ‘I can’t answer that question.’”
Opinions vary on impact of Supreme Court decision to put stay on same-sex marriages in Utah | Los Angeles Daily News
Los Angeles Daily News: “I think it’s an indicator that the Supreme Court meant what it said in (a prior case), that the states, not the federal government, have the right to define marriage, which would include California as well as any other state,” said Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, and co-counsel in the defense of Proposition 8.
San Francisco Chronicle: Legal reporters with time on their hands sometimes leaf through U.S. Supreme Court rulings and see things they’ve never noticed before. Like Justice Samuel Alito’s putdown of San Francisco’s former chief federal judge, Vaughn Walker, for his ruling on same-sex marriage.
Cruz, David B., ‘Amorphous Federalism’ and the Supreme Court’s Marriage Cases (November 8, 2013). Loyola Law Review, Supreme Court Issue, Forthcoming; USC Legal Studies Research Papers Series No. 13-18. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2352038
“I have a rule: I don’t do weddings,” Justice Kennedy said. The reason has to do more with another doctrine he has championed: federalism. “I have a theory that federal judges can’t take authority from state laws,” including those that regulate family relations, he said.
Jess Bravin at the Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said he was surprised the issue of gay marriage came to the high court so soon, before the nation had time to become more accustomed to the idea.
Matthew J. Frank at Public Discourse: A New Jersey judge’s contorted and nonsensical decision that the state is responsible for the federal government’s failure to recognize same-sex marriage highlights the irrationality that permeates the campaign for “marriage equality.”
Christian Post: The decision to rule in favor of gay marriage has been criticized by a number of conservative Christians, including Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, who following the Supreme Court ruling reminded Americans that “Marriage – the union of husband and wife – is timeless, universal, and special, particularly because children need a mother and a father.”
Religion Clause Blog: On Friday, the U.S.9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 v. Bowen . . .
FrontiersLA.com: Harris won that November—beating L.A. DA Steve Cooley—and making history as the first female, the first African-American and first Indian-American in California history to be elected state attorney general. Harris also became an instant media and political celebrity, some calling her the female Barack Obama. But she used that star status to advance her passion for justice, including making national headlines when she refused to defend Prop. 8 in federal court. (See video below of her appearance on CNN against Prop. 8 proponent/Alliance Defending Freedom Vice President Austin R. Nimocks.)
Bloomberg BusinessWeek: After then-California Attorney General Jerry Brown and his successor, Kamala Harris, both Democrats, refused to defend Proposition 8, the initiative banning gay marriage in that state, the Scottsdale, Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom took the case. The Supreme Court ruled its client, a group that sponsored the proposition, couldn’t stand in for the state, because it hadn’t suffered a particular injury. [also posted at Newsmax]
“The untold risks of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decisions” | Tom Goldstein at SCOTUS Blog
Tom Goldstein at SCOTUS Blog: But those positive rulings make it easy to miss signals that the Court is not yet ready to announce a constitutional right to same-sex marriage before the states fully consider the issue. Presented with the …
Baptist Press on Fla. Baptist Witness: Austin Nimocks of Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal group that filed the petition along with ProtectMarriage.com, said elected officials should enforce the law. “Though the current California officials are unwilling to enforce the state constitution, we remain hopeful that one day Californians will elect officials who will,” Nimocks said in a written statement. Nimocks maintains that Proposition 8 is still the law of the land in California despite public officials who refuse to enforce it and have proceeded with issuing marriagelicenses to same-sex couples. The court’s decision, he said, “does not end the debate about marriage in California.”
San Francisco Chronicle: When Theodore Olson and David Boies, two prominent corporate lawyers, challenged California’s ban on same-sex marriage in federal court more than four years ago, many gay-rights advocates thought it was the wrong case in the wrong court, at the wrong time, and could set the movement back seriously.
AP: The law on VA benefits specifically defines spouse and surviving spouse as someone of the opposite sex, which has prevented same-sex married couples from accessing such benefits as enhanced disability or pension payments.
Bloomberg: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s incremental approach on gay marriage, blamed her colleagues for inviting a deluge of political spending — and suggested she’s ready to spar over those issues for years to come.
Philippine News: Within hours that very day, the Supreme Court reportedly received and denied an emergency appeal by a group called Alliance Defending Freedom to stop the marriages taking place in California, citing legal requirement to wait for certification of the high court decision, typically a period of 25 days.
Elected officials should enforce the law. Though the current California officials are unwilling to enforce the state constitution, we remain hopeful that one day Californians will elect officials who will.
Ryan T. Anderson Christian Post: The Court got the case wrong. While there is little of value in the majority opinion, the three dissenting opinions signal the path that marriage proponents should take from here.
“DOMA Ruling: As Violent Anti-Gay Marriage Protests Rock France, Will the Same Happen in the U.S.?” | PolicyMic
William Yang at Policy Mic: Jim Campbell, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, said in an interview with the Associated Press that the Supreme Court should not abruptly intervene in a national debate. “The vast majority of the states have decided to retain the traditional view of marriage that has existed throughout Western civilization,” Campbell said. “This decision belongs to the people and should be decided by the people.”
David Davenport writes at Forbes: The Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Decisions Reverberate Through The States
Simon Lazarus at the New Republic: On its final two days, June 25 and 26, Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues—”the most conservative” set of justices ever—delivered four intensely anticipated decisions. When the dust settled, progressives had scored two unambiguous wins: The Court struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, and it left standing a lower court’s decision striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage. A third case yielded a stand-off that felt like a win, because a huge loss had been expected: The University of Texas’ race-conscious admissions regime was remanded for further review . . .
Prop. 8 proponents ask California Supreme Court to uphold rule of law | Austin R. Nimocks at Sonoran News
Austin R. Nimocks at Sonoran News: Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing the official proponents of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court Friday to order the state’s county clerks to enforce the state’s marriage amendment.
Ryan T. Anderson at Heritage Foundation: Redefining marriage, as argued in this space yesterday, will undercut its public purpose and social function, causing great social harm. So, in the wake of last month’s Supreme Court rulings, where does the marriage movement go from here?
After Perry & Windsor: A Conversation With Evan Wolfson, William Eskridge, Linda Greenhouse and Brad Snyder
Above the Law: Last night, I headed over to the fabulous midtown offices of Proskauer Rose — the best offices in Biglaw, as picked by readers of Above the Law — to attend a fascinating panel discussion, After Perry & Windsor: A Conversation about the Supreme Court’s Rulings. It was co-sponsored by LeGaL and Proskauer’s LGBT Affinity Group, and it featured the following experts on the legal battle over same-sex marriage:
Newsmax (video embedded): The fight to revive Proposition 8 in California isn’t over yet, despite an eleventh-hour request to halt gay marriage being turned down, according to Joe Infranco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. “We need a robust debate to continue because marriage, the union between a husband and wife, is a timeless and universal and unique arrangement,” Infranco told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.
Frank Schubert at Public Discourse: The process that killed Prop 8 in California should concern anyone who cares about democracy and the rule of law. The cheaters won.
Cal. Prop. 8 litigation, federalism, lawlessness and voter authority | Caleb Dalton on the Bill Post Radio Show
Kicking it Down the Line: The Effect of the Recent Marriage Decisions on State Laws and Constitutions Protecting Marriage | Jon Scruggs at Townhall
Jon Scruggs at Townhall: Contrary to what you may have heard, the fight for marriage did not end on June 26 when the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, and the Defense of Marriage Act case, United States v. Windsor. Neither of these cases invalidated any state law (such as a state constitutional amendment or state statute) protecting marriage. And neither case guaranteed the future invalidation of any state law protecting marriage.
KTVA CBS 11: Proponents of Prop. 8 argue that state officials should be obligated to defend and enforce a law directly approved by voters. After all, Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent support in California in 2008 — on the same day Californians helped elect President Obama. “Those voices deserve respect,” Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said on CNN Wednesday. “We don’t just ignore constitutions because we don’t like the way they read. The law in California is very clear.”
Alliance Defending Freedom at The Christian Post: In the wake of these decisions, it may be easy to be confused about their effect on marriage and religious freedom. Some pastors have expressed concerns over the potential impact of the decisions on their churches. Here are some short key points regarding the impact of the decisions . . .
Speak Up Movement Church: In the wake of these decisions, it may be easy to be confused about their effect on marriage and religious freedom. Some pastors have expressed concerns over the potential impact of the decisions on their churches. Here are some short key points regarding the impact of the decisions . . .
NY Times: HBO plans to air a documentary from filmmakers who had behind-the-scenes access to the legal team led by David Boies, left, and Theodore B. Olson that challenged California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
CNSNews: ACLU Challenging Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Pa. — Then N.C. and Va. The ACLU press release: Expanding the Freedom to Marry: Here’s What’s Next ACLU press release: ACLU Seeks Freedom to Marry for Pennsylvania Couples Lambda Legal: Lambda Legal …
Christian Post: Alan Sears, President of Alliance Defending Freedom, stated in his response to the court’s decision on DOMA, that this decision “will not end the national debate over marriage.” Sears thinks that this national debate is a helpful thing. “In fact,” says Sears, “the legal battles over the definition of marriage have provided the perfect opportunity to reintroduce the American people to the goodness and value of marriage.” Speaking with optimism, Sears affirmed his vision that “Once the people examine all dimensions of the debate, and why marriage is important, we’re confident America will return to a strong and healthy marriage culture, recognizing that marriage is the institution upon which a healthy and thriving society is built.”
Philippine News: A brilliantly sunny June 30, the Sunday following the United States Supreme Court’s rulings on the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 effectively favoring same-sex marriage, drew almost a million and a half people to downtown San Francisco to celebrate equality . . . Within hours that very day, the Supreme Court reportedly received and denied an emergency appeal by a group called Alliance Defending Freedom to stop the marriages taking place in California, citing legal requirement to wait for certification of the high court decision, typically a period of 25 days.
Bishop says SCOTUS endorsed ‘intrinsic evil’ of homosexuality through raw judicial power | LifeSiteNews
LifeSiteNews (7/5): Justice Anthony Kennedy’s ruling in U.S. v. Windsor stated that the proponents of the law, and its modern defenders, had been animated only by “animus” and fueled by a desire to “disparage” and “injure” homosexuals. The ruling’s especially harsh language led Justice Antonin Scalia to reply that the liberal majority had labeled supporters of traditional marriage “enemies of the human race.” Justice Kennedy then denied a motion from the Alliance Defending Freedom to prevent the state of California from issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples. ADF accused the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of violating their own stay order by authorizing the issuance of official certificates before receiving a certified copy of the Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
Bill Mears of CNN on PrideSource: “Everyone on all sides of the marriage debate should agree that the legal process must be followed,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, on Sunday. “The 9th Circuit has failed to abide by its own word that the stay would remain in place until final disposition by the Supreme Court. When courts act contrary to their own statements, the public’s confidence in the justice system is undermined.”
Delaware Co. News Network (7/5): The Arizona-based group Alliance Defending Freedom, who pushed for Proposition 8, is already scrambling, filing a petition to the high court saying the Ninth Circuit had no right to allow same-sex marriages to resume one day after the ruling. Most Supreme Court rulings don’t take effect for 25 days. “They’re gonna want to defend the prohibition on same-sex marriage so a lot of action is going to shift it to the states,” Valelly said on these groups, adding that it will be harder for these groups to get votes from lawmakers.
David Crary at The Advocate (AP) (7/5): “The debate over marriage has only just begun,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group.
Richard Wolfe and Brad Heath of USA Today on Des Moines Register: Opponents of same-sex marriage refused to take “no” for an answer. “Proposition 8 does remain the law in the state of California,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, noting that lawyers will continue to defend it “unless and until there is an appellate court decision from a court with jurisdiction that strikes it down.”
NPR on WAMU 88.5: Host Michel Martin speaks with professor of constitutional law, Margaret Russell, and Joe Infranco from Alliance Defending Freedom, about what the decisions mean. | Audio runs 11:37 mins
The North Coast Journal (7/4): Jordan Lorence, senior council at the alliance, told the Journal in a phone interview on Monday that the alliance is weighing two options: making its next stand in state court or in federal court. If it wants to try federal court, it has 25 days from when the decision was announced to petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing of the case. If it opts to fight in state court, Lorence said, it might look into representing a county clerk who ignores the governor’s call to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. “The only thing [county clerks] are required to do is uphold all parts of the state constitution, which includes Proposition 8,” he said.
Catholic San Francisco (7/3): Our expectation would be that officials of the state would protect and defend the California Constitution, both Prop. 8 and other provisions,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, co-counsel defending Proposition 8. “They obviously have not done that in this case to this point.” . . . The two same-sex couples who contested Prop. 8 in federal district court in San Francisco did not file a class action suit, and therefore there is a case to be made that the district court ruling only applies to them, said Dale Schowengerdt, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. Other legal avenues are also being considered but not publicized, said Schowengerdt. Nimocks said “the marriage debate is going to do exactly what we thought it was going to do, and that’s continue in the courts, legislative halls and every place. And it’s going to continue for a good long time.”
David Davenport at Forbes: The legalization of same sex marriage started with the vote of a single judge in Massachusetts ten years ago, and pressed forward with a single unappealable decision by a California federal judge. As in Roe v. Wade and the fury it caused about abortion, the courts would do better to leave social change to the people and their elected officials.
A Roe By Any Other Name – Make no mistake: Windsor ends the same-sex marriage battle. | Mona Charen at NRO
Mona Charen at NRO: Marriage is much more than that. But the argument will have to continue outside the legislatures and the courts — because five members of the Supreme Court have taken our power, our franchise, and our sovereignty from us.
Engage Family Minute: I think the pregnant question is how will the church respond? Will it continue to tolerate a culture of divorce, co-habitation, and infidelity in marriage that threatens to destroy the family? Will it continue to skirt the issue of homosexuality in order to not “offend” anyone? Or will the church finally start teaching a complete model of biblical sexuality and marriage that boldly addresses all these issues? It’s not unloving to teach the truth of Scripture. It is however, unloving to teach only a half-truth while ignoring the whole truth.
Speak Up Movements carries the video.
Newsmax (video from Steve Malzburg Show): The fight to revive Proposition 8 in California isn’t over yet, despite an eleventh-hour request to halt gay marriage being turned down, according to Joe Infranco, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Yahoo News: Headline on a news release June 30, by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an advocacy organization involved in the legal defense of California’s “Proposition 8” ban on same-sex marriage. The release briefly described Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s Sunday order refusing to block such marriages.
Ryan T. Anderson at Red State: Not only was the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act baseless and just plain wrong, you won’t learn much from reading Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion. Except that he thinks only bigotry can explain support for marriage as it was until the year 2000—a male-female union. You can learn something, however, from reading the three dissenting opinions closely. The conservative justices’ dissents are like flares signaling the path that marriage proponents must take from here.
Washington Times (6/30): “I think regardless of what anybody thinks about same-sex marriage, everyone who cares about democracy should be concerned about this decision,” said John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. “It’s fundamentally undemocratic.”
Howard Johnson at U-T San Diego: If you felt the earth move when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Proposition 8 case, it wasn’t because the opinion offered groundbreaking edicts about Prop 8 or same-sex marriage. No, that shaking sensation was Gov. Hiram Johnson spinning in his grave, because the California initiative process that he brought into being a century ago was dealt a serious blow by the high court.
SCOTUS made no ruling about constitutionality of Prop. 8 | Byron Babione on Meeting House, Faith Radio
BBC: The Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed the petition, described Friday’s order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as “the latest in a long line of judicial irregularities”.
Gospel Herald: Everyone on all sides of the marriage debate should agree that the legal process must be followed,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “The 9th Circuit has failed to abide by its own word that the stay would remain in place until final disposition by the Supreme Court. When courts act contrary to their own statements, the public’s confidence in the justice system is undermined.”
Baptist Press on Townhall: “Everyone on all sides of the marriage debate should agree that the legal process must be followed,” ADF senior counsel Austin Nimocks said. “The Ninth Circuit has failed to abide by its own word that the stay would remain in place until final disposition by the Supreme Court. When courts act contrary to their own statements, the public’s confidence in the justice system is undermined.”
Matthew J. Franck at National Review: In the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet had a very smart essay raising the central question about the extent to which we are governed, on our most important political issues, by an unelected, unaccountable judiciary. That question is, why do we put up with it? No one can seriously say that what the Supreme Court did in the Windsor case last week was constitutional law.
NRO (video embedded): “This question is clearly not answered in the Constitution of the United States, and we are manufacturing a right to redefine marriage and impose it no matter whether the state or the country wants to have that redefinition,” said Eastman. “That’s judicial tyranny.”
CNSNews: In a speech on the House floor on Friday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) suggested last week’s Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, which moved marriage “beyond the scope of a man and a woman,” could open the door to legalized polygamy.
CNSNews: Everyone on all sides of the marriage debate should agree that the legal process must be followed,” said Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks in a news release issued over the weekend. “The 9th Circuit made a clear representation upon which all parties should be able to rely–that the stay would remain in place until final disposition by the Supreme Court. On Friday, the 9th Circuit acted contrary to its own order without explanation. “Last year, the 9th Circuit itself reminded all parties to the Proposition 8 case that the ‘integrity of our judicial system depends in no small part on the ability of litigants and members of the public to rely on a judge’s word.’ We agree,” Nimocks said.
Zeibiz: Attorneys of Protectmarriage dot.com and Alliance Defending Freedom filed the petition Saturday arguing that the circuit court should not have lifted the injunction on same-sex marriages in California until the 25th day following the SC decision as required by court rules. | Title on this report is erroneous
CBN (includes video): Attorneys with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom argued in the petition that the 9th Circuit acted prematurely and unfairly. Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Austin Nimocks had contended that his clients still had 22 days to ask the justices to reconsider their decision holding that Proposition 8′s backers did not have legal authority to defend the ban.