Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Back In Power, Republicans Reclaim Anti-Gay Marriage Mantle | The Bilerico Project
Image via WikipediaWith the rise of the Tea Party and fiscal conservatism, I truly hoped -- and believed -- that Republicans had moved on from divisive culture wars. 
I sincerely thought the days of forcing gay marriage bans was in the past, an ugly history that would be rectified when the libertarian strains emerging across the nation solidified.Apparently I was wrong, for Republicans in both Minnesota, North Carolina and potentially elsewhere are gearing up for a fresh battle around marriage equality.
Maybe it is 1994, after all.
Back In Power, Republicans Reclaim Anti-Gay Marriage Mantle | The Bilerico Project
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
NJ Supreme Court Declines to hear same sex marriage cases
From NJ.COM :
In a split decision, the state Supreme Court has declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, saying the case needs to wind its way through the lower courts first.
In a split decision, the state Supreme Court has declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, saying the case needs to wind its way through the lower courts first.
“This matter cannot be decided without the development of an appropriate trial-like record,” wrote the three justices who voted to deny the couples' motion, adding "we reach no conclusion on the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the constitutionality of the Civil Union Act.".
The couples filed the case in the aftermath of the failure of same-sex legislation in the state Senate, arguing that the state’s 2006 civil union law had failed to grant them the full rights and benefits of heterosexual married couples that the court mandated the Legislature provide them with four years ago. Since the Legislature failed to pass same-sex marriage, the couples wanted the court to intervene.
They will now have to file a new complaint in Superior Court, which will then have to climb the rungs to reach the state Supreme Court.
The decision was 3-3, with Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens voting to deny the couples’ motion. Three justices dissented: Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia and Barry Albin. It takes four votes to approve a motion, and the court has had a vacant seat since Gov. Chris Christie declined to renominate former Justice John Wallace, whose term expired in May.
The three dissenting justices wrote that the court should have heard oral arguments from the plaintiffs as well as opponents of same-sex marriage.
“At the very least, oral argument would have helped to guide us on the best procedural course for creating such a record,” they said."We are disappointed that three members of the court voted to deny the motion without oral argument and that plaintiffs must now begin anew... If the plaintiffs' allegations are true -- and we will not surmise whether they are or are not -- then the constitutional inequities shoudl be addressed without any unnecessary delay."
The dissenters said they hoped the case would make its way through the Superior Court with "deliberate speed."
The decision was split not along ideological lines, but among those who have and have not been granted tenure. The three justices who have to be reconfirmed voted to deny the motion, while the three who have received lifetime tenure until the age of 70 dissented.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Kagan and Gay Marriage
Image via WikipediaELENA KAGAN uttered neither the word “gay” nor “marriage” in her opening statement at the Senate confirmation hearings on her nomination to the Supreme Court, but she addressed the issue nonetheless. No, she didn’t say how she will vote when gay marriage comes before the court, as it may soon. What she did say was this:
“The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”
Ms. Kagan may not have had gay marriage in mind when she made that statement, but it could not be more relevant. She seems to be saying that protecting minority rights is the Supreme Court’s job description, but also that a civil rights claim doesn’t automatically trump majority preferences. This is something absolutists on both sides of the gay marriage debate don’t like to hear, but it has the virtue of being right.
While the Senate considers Ms. Kagan’s nomination, Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court in San Francisco is deciding how to rule in a major lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that revoked and banned same-sex marriage in California (while leaving the state’s marriage-like domestic partner program intact). Judge Walker may declare that the United States Constitution gives gay couples the right to marry — a decision sure to start a political firestorm (possibly just in time to give the Democrats an additional headache in this year’s midterm elections). Whatever he decides is likely to be appealed, presumably up to the court that Ms. Kagan seems likely to join.
This case is not primarily about the merits of gay marriage. It is primarily about who gets to decide. The plaintiffs say marriage is a civil right, and when a civil right is assailed, the Supreme Court has no choice but to take command. If the Supreme Court doesn’t protect minority rights, it abdicates its job.
Proposition 8’s defenders retort that gay marriage is not a civil right, because it is not marriage, or not marriage as defined by most Californians. If the court does not defer to the voters’ wishes, it oversteps its bounds.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Minnesota Lawsuit seeking to overturn ban on gay marriage risky
In the state of Minnesota, a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state's ban on same sex marriage is facing tough odds in court.
It also lacks the broad public support that propelled which helped 5 other states successfully end their ban.
Gay activists across the nation are worried that it may propel some sort of backlash in this election year:
"There are both legal and political reasons to believe that this lawsuit is a very risky roll of the dice," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota law professor who supports same-sex marriage.
The state will elect a new governor in November, and voters will have a chance to change every seat in the Legislature -- which is currently controlled by Democrats. Some political analysts believe it could be a good year for Republicans, as public approval ratings for President Barack Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress dip.
Gay rights supporters are very aware of how conservative groups will attempt to use the gay marriage issue as a wedge, and to put Democratic incumbents on the hot seat, winning votes for the opposition.
Some gay activists believe this battle might set gay advocacy back.
Already, a national group opposed to same-sex marriage has launched a $200,000 ad campaign targeting gubernatorial candidates who support same-sex marriage. And another conservative group is ready to intervene, and argue on behalf of Minnesota's state constitution.
Across the country, state laws on same-sex marriage range from fully allowing it to strictly prohibiting it by state constitutional amendment. Minnesota is among a handful of states in the middle in which there's a ban on same-sex marriage but no constitutional amendment defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.
States which are "on the fence" are being sought eagerly by both sides, each wanting to tip things in their own favor.
Some gay activists are looking at Iowa as a precedent for Minnesota. But the lawsuit in Minnesota faces different challenges than those overcome in Iowa and elsewhere.
Minnesota Supreme Court Ruling, 1971
Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against same-sex marriage in 1971, a precedent which no other state which won same sex marriage had, and a decision which the current Minnesota State Court would have to overturn. Four of the seven members were appointed by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
"If they reaffirm that decision, there's a danger that they do it strongly. The danger is huge and the chance of success is small," said Amy Johnson, executive director ofOutFront Minnesota, a gay rights group that opposes the lawsuit and instead has lobbied at the State Capitol to lift the ban by repealing the 1997 Defense of Marriage Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act bans same-sex marriage and in addition rules that same sex marriages from other states cannot be recognized in Minnesota.
DOMA Challenged on Behalf of 3 Couples
Attorney Peter Nickitas filed suit on behalf of three couples, challenging the state's Defense of Marriage Act through the courts.
The lawsuit argues the law violates equal treatment under the law, and that Minnesota's Constitution provides for free conscience and equality; It also says the Defense of Marriage Act addressed more than one issue at once, in violation of a constitutional requirement that legislation deal with a single issue.
Nickitas does not believe there is any reason for assuming the Supreme Court will rule against the couples.
"The world has changed quite a bit since 1971," he said. "In 1971, no religious denomination or faith movement honored same-sex marriage. Today, many do so."
Gay Group OutFront Minnesota Says Suit Too Risky
OutFront Minnesota issued a statement criticizing the action as ill-conceived and risky. But one of the plaintiffs pointed out that after the suit was filed, more than 1,000 people joined Marry Me Minnesota -- the group raising funds for the legal fight -- on Facebook, although the suit lacks national backing.
A legal scholar pointed out that Iowa's Supreme Court was more moderate than Minnesota's, and Iowa has a tradition of upholding human rights.
Two examples of states where lawsuits were filed over the objections of some in the gay rights community were given by Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom To Marry: New York and Arizona. Both lawsuits failed, and it became more difficult to change the law after that.
"Going to court is not the only way to end discrimination," he said. "It's better to engage the people of the state in understanding. Minnesota is a state where people are inclined to be fair."
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v6Wni2BW-25asc4kdLmAPeUomlZnN634IZ5-YWtQgViOWKMcCO3PLYWgrrFQWPNagpg6ZJPBP4d8-yNgA1madYLLXgNQxiCZG_0xZH7nSx5mBshq8FdZBsQ_hvF_iSGV2Ihli5xCBBrOmT8aMHGOw=s0-d)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Iowa Opponents of Gay Marriage Seek to Amend State Constitution | NowPublic News Coverage
Iowa groups opposed to gay marriage released a letter and petition with the signatures of more than 800 Iowa pastors they plan on sending to candidates for statewide office and the Legislature.
In 2009 an Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa, and opponents have vowed to try to ban same-sex marriage. They are now seeking to do this by amending the state's constitution to define marriage as "one man, one woman".
At a news conference outside the state Capitol Tuesday, officials with Purpose Ministries and the Iowa Family Policy Center stressed the importance of the issue in advance of Tuesday's primary election.
Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, said he hopes the candidates will get the message.
The group says it hopes they will "see the light and feel the heat".
Brad Sherman, founder of Purpose Ministries has told press that marriage dates back 5,000 years, and has always been a man-woman union for procreation.
"Now we have a court who has contrary to nature and nature's God, chosen to redefine marriage and begin to legislate this from the bench," Sherman said. "We also have a Legislature, the leadership of which has refused and blocked every effort for the people of Iowa to have a vote on this issue."
He added that Senators and Representatives must represent the Iowans who voted for them, and "not the homosexual lobby".
All 3 GOP Senators running for Governor have stated their support for amending Iowa's constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
One of them, Bob Vander Plaats has promised toissue an executive order on his first day in office to halt same-sex marriages until the Legislature addresses the issue or gives voters a chance to amend the Constitution.
Candidate Rod Roberts has said he would veto budget bills until the Legislature takes action to allow Iowa voters to weigh in.
Troy Price, political director of gay rights group One Iowa, said this election is about jobs and the economy and improving schools; and that a homophobic agenda which seeks to take away people's rights will not score votes.
" I will sink you"
In addition to this news, Iowa’s Republican National Committeeman sent an e-mail this week from his Blackberry to a gay member of his party who is considering a run for president, telling him he would work overtime to ensure that his campaign aspirations are thwarted.
“You and the radical homosexual community want to harass supporters of REAL marriage,” Steve Scheffler wrote in an e-mail to Fred Karger, a longtime civil rights advocate in California who is gay and has announced he is running for president. “. . . I will work overtime to help ensure that your political aspirations are aborted right here in Iowa.”
Karger expressed shock and dismay, that so high ranking a GOP member would be blatantly disdainful.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vAyeAzK1iwLikoiCm_fFORvVEPqBjp3Ioqh5AuV3vuIsNmoaLwMI9KqtcSy8EuQqDznvfmcjTs5Zfyu8QWgnM7bAshuVqQD2YI8tHAHq-RugGsJDz2b7oa0ZlQWboFyNMjaBx_DWvyNCKf6rKgAqd5=s0-d)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)