Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[MCWAY]

The thing is that its so obvious this is all about gay $$$$$ flowing to his campaign and little else. 

But, but, but, but.....I thought social issues didn't matter. Isn't that what the left-winged goofies in the media keep saying?

Kiss at least 2% of the black vote goodbye (and, at a time when Obama needs every vote he can get).

[BayGBM]

NAACP backs same-sex marriage as civil right
Associated Press – 15 hrs ago

MIAMI (AP) — The NAACP passed a resolution Saturday endorsing same-sex marriage as a civil right and opposing any efforts "to codify discrimination or hatred into the law."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's board voted at a leadership retreat in Miami to back a resolution supporting marriage equality, calling the position consistent with the equal protection provision of the U.S. Constitution.

"The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure political, social and economic equality of all people," Board Chairwoman Roslyn M. Brock said in a statement. "We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law."

Same-sex marriage is legal in six states and the District of Columbia, but 31 states have passed amendments to ban it.

"Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP's support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people" said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous, a strong backer of gay rights.

Gay marriage has divided the black community, with many religious leaders opposing it. In California, exit polls showed about 70 percent of blacks opposed same-sex marriage in 2008. In Maryland, black religious leaders helped derail a gay marriage bill last year. But state lawmakers passed a gay marriage bill this year.

Pew Research Center polls have found that African Americans have become more supportive of same-sex marriage in recent years, but remain less supportive than other groups. A poll conducted in April showed 39 percent of African-Americans favor gay marriage, compared with 47 percent of whites. The poll showed 49 percent of blacks and 43 percent of whites are opposed.

The Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, applauded the step by the Baltimore-based civil rights organization.

"We could not be more pleased with the NAACP's history-making vote today — which is yet another example of the traction marriage equality continues to gain in every community," HRC President Joe Solmonese said in a statement.

[MCWAY]

The NAACP, falling in lockstep with its liberal masters....Surprise, Surprise!!  

Let them keep citing these polls, claiming that black people are more supportive of gay "marriage". I guess they miss that North Carolina vote, where black voters approved the amendment by better than 2-to-1.

70% of black voters approve California's Prop. 8 (though some liberals, still shocked that it passed claim it was only 58%).

71% of black voters approved Florida's Amendment 2.

Amendment 2 fate lies with black voter turnout

Whether Florida bans gay marriage in its state Constitution could be decided by how much presidential candidate Barack Obama drives turnout among African Americans, according to a new poll underwritten by a trio of news organizations.

Amendment 2 teeters on the edge of passage, with 59 percent of likely voters saying they would support it, results from a St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald statewide poll show. The measure needs 60 percent approval to pass.

Pollsters think voters like Carrie Wynn of Largo will tip the scales in favor of Amendment 2.

Wynn is an African American woman, a registered Democrat, and she voted early, for Obama. She also voted for Amendment 2.

"I don't believe in gay marriage," said Wynn, 71, who participated in the poll of 800 likely voters from Monday through Wednesday. "One man, one woman. That's what I believe in."

Although only 48 percent of Democrats overall favor the amendment, some 69 percent of black voters support it.

"Its promise lies in the fact that you are going to see an increase in turnout among African-American voters," said Kellyanne Conway, president of the Polling Company, which often works for Republican candidates. Her firm conducted the poll with SEA Polling and Strategic Design, a firm that works with Democrats.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 3.5 percent, showed the gay marriage ban, which mirrors what is already in state law, has a majority of support across most demographic groups, be it Republicans, independents, blacks, whites, Hispanics, young or old, male or female.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article868615.ece

Keep in mind that Florida requires a 60% supermajority to pass any state amendment. So, this was the one vote where gay "marriage" supporters could win without actually winning. Yet, when the dust settled, Amendment 2 passed 62-38.



The media keeps trying to tell itself that African-Americans are warming up to gay "marriage". Yet, these marriage amendment votes torpedo that narrative, time and time again.

Three other states (Maryland, Minnesota, and Indiana) have marriage amendments on deck. We'll see how much support black people show to the amendment's opponents. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the same-sex crew going 0-35.

[BayGBM]

Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, federal appeals court declares
By Robert Barnes, Updated: Thursday, May 31, 8:32 AM

A federal appeals court panel in Boston declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional on Thursday, but said that only the Supreme Court will be able to settle the question of whether the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages from states where such unions are legal.

A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said the act, which was signed by President Clinton and denies federal economic and other benefits for married people from same-sex couples married in states where it is legal, could not be justified under current precedents that protect minorities and other groups from discrimination.

For 150 years, Circuit Judge Michael Boudin wrote, the “desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute . . . . But Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern.”

The Obama administration had decided not to defend the act, known as DOMA, because it had concluded that the law was unconstitutional. It was a step along the way in Obama’s “evolution” on same-sex unions. In May, the president said publicly that he supported same-sex marriage but that the issue should be left up to the states.

The judicial panel noted that most Americans live in states that have either passed laws or amended their constitutions to express, as DOMA does, that marriage is legal only if it’s between a man and a woman.

“One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage,” Boudin wrote. “Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.”

The opinion did not address whether other states may be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal. And the judges said the case did not call upon them to address whether there is a constitutional right to marriage that must be available to gay couples.

The case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, was brought by seven same-sex couples married in Massachusetts and three surviving spouses of such marriages who were denied federal benefits and recognition. The decision said there were about 100,000 couples who would be affected.

“We have done our best to discern the direction” of court precedents, the opinion said, “but only the Supreme Court can finally decide this unique case.”

[BayGBM]

Denmark allows same-sex marriages
Published: June 7, 2012 at 11:17 AM

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, June 7 (UPI) -- The Danish Parliament voted 85-24 Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage, opening the way for such unions as early as June 15.

Couples in civil partnerships will automatically be granted the status of married, officials said.

"Today we allow homosexual couples to enter into marriage on the same footing as any others -- something that Socialdemokraterne has fought for many years," Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt posted on Facebook.

The law does, however, allow priests to decline to marry same-sex couples in their churches, The Copenhagen Post reported.

"We are giving vicars the opportunity to say no. That's what's so fantastic about this proposal. On the one hand it allows same sex couples the opportunity to get married," Minister for Equality Manu Sareen said. "But at the same time we are reaching out to priests and saying that those who don't want to wed homosexual couples don't have to. We recognize that when dealing with theology you have to accept there will be different interpretations."

Not everyone is please with the law, though. The Kristendemokraterne Party, which holds no seats in Parliament, said the legislation restricts religious freedom and has threatened to sue the state.

"Parliament is infringing on religious freedom and in doing so violates the Constitution. That is why we are working on a lawsuit against the state to protect religious freedom and protect people who feel the law infringes their right to practice their faith," Kristendemokraterne Party Chairman Per Orum Jorgensen said.

[BayGBM]

Former VP Cheney's daughter marries partner
Friday, June 22, 2012

Mary Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, has married her longtime partner, Heather Poe.

In a statement, Cheney and his wife, Lynne, said the couple got married in Washington on Friday. The Cheneys said the two had been in a committed relationship for many years and they were delighted that they could take advantage of the "opportunity to have the relationship recognized." The District of Columbia and six states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont — have legalized gay marriage.

Mary Cheney and Poe have two children.

In the 2004 election, Republicans backing the ticket of President George W. Bush and Cheney pushed for state ballot initiatives rejecting gay marriage. More recently, President Barack Obama expressed his support for same-sex marriage.

[BayGBM]

Calif. same-sex marriage foe now endorses unions
LISA LEFF, Associated Press
Friday, June 22, 2012

The chief witness who testified in favor of California's gay marriage ban during a landmark trial on the measure's constitutionality reluctantly came out in favor of gay and lesbian unions on Friday, saying he now thinks "that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over."

In an opinion piece published in The New York Times ( http://nyti.ms/Lo6a6V), Institute for American Values president David Blankenhorn partly attributed his change of heart to a recognition that years of opposing same-sex unions had done nothing to strengthen the institution of marriage among heterosexuals.

"I had also hoped that debating gay marriage might help to lead heterosexual America to a broader and more positive recommitment to marriage as an institution. But it hasn't happened," Blankenhorn wrote. "If fighting gay marriage was going to help marriage over all, I think we'd have seen some signs of it by now."

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who spearheaded the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 on behalf of two same-sex couples that led to Blankenhorn's testimony, applauded his former adversary's conversion on the issue.

"While it can be difficult as a public figure to change course, I applaud him for taking a courageous and principled stand. His experience wrestling with the issue of marriage equality and coming out on the right side of history will be an inspiration to millions of fair-minded Americans who are in the same place," Griffin said.

Backers of the California ban did not have immediate comment Friday.

Blankenhorn's reversal is likely to have more of a public relations effect than a legal one in the gay marriage debate. The federal judge who presided over the 2010 trial disqualified Blankenhorn as an expert witness, saying he was more of a commentator than a researcher and that his testimony had not been cogent.

An appeals court affirmed the trial judge's conclusion that the ban was unconstitutional. Proposition 8's sponsors said this month that they plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Blankenhorn, an author whose New York-based think tank has been one of the traditional marriage movement's most consistent, if moderate voices, was one of two witnesses that lawyers for the sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, called to the stand in January 2010. With that proceeding, the voter-approved measure became the subject of the first federal trial to examine if laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman violate the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

During two days of testimony, he repeatedly stated that the rights of same-sex couples should come second to preserving the cherished, social institution of marriage based on the moral imperative of maximizing opportunities for allowing children to know both their biological parents.

But he became combative and jumbled during an exhaustive cross-examination, eventually allowing that permitting gay couples to wed was consistent with the American values of equality and fairness.

In his New York Times commentary, Blankenhorn wrote that while he still thinks children benefit from knowing both their biological parents, he has concluded that it is just as important for same-sex couples to be treated equally under the law.

"I don't believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over," he said.

Another factor in his endorsement of same-sex marriage, Blankenhorn said, was what he termed "an underlying anti-gay animus" among "much of the opposition to gay marriage."

"As I look at what our society needs most today, I have no stomach for what we often too glibly call `culture wars.' Especially on this issue, I'm more interested in conciliation than in further fighting," he said.

[chadstallion]

what a bitch.
campaigned for her daddy and his boss who was agin' this.
then she travels across state to where it's legal.

[BayGBM]

what a bitch.
campaigned for her daddy and his boss who was agin' this.
then she travels across state to where it's legal.

Remarkably self serving when you stop to think about it. 

[chadstallion]

bingo!

[BayGBM]

Maryland approves same-sex marriage law
By John Wagner, Paul Schwartzman and Ned Martel

Voters in Maryland narrowly upheld the state’s same-sex marriage law, a historic victory for the national gay-rights movement that highlights the country’s evolving definition of marriage.

Before Tuesday, gays and lesbians had been granted the right to marry by courts and state legislatures, but proponents of marriage had been defeated at the ballot box in more than 30 states.

Maryland was joined by Maine in approving gay marriage, making the two states’ voters the first in the country to approve the measures by a popular vote. Voters in Minnesota rejected a constitutional amendment that would have banned same-same sex marriage.

In Maryland, gay couples will be able to wed starting Jan. 1.

As they watched the results at a Baltimore club and sensed victory, Ruth Siegel and Nina Nethery, together for 15 years, said they felt joyous. They were surrounded by hundreds of supporters of the referendum to legalize same sex marriage.

“It’s being part of history,” said Nethery, 59, a systems analyst who lives with Siegel in Silver Spring. “ I’m in history.”

Maryland voters also approved the Dream Act, allowing undocumented immigrants to receive in-state college tuition rates. A measure that allows a new casino in Prince George’s County was narrowly approved.

Several of the votes — most notably Question 6, the same-sex marriage measure — carried political consequences for Gov. Martin O’Malley (D). Marylanders were asked whether to affirm the gay marriage law championed this year by the governor that was put on hold after opponents gathered enough signatures to force a public vote.

Maryland and Maine join six other states and the District where same-sex marriage has been legal.

Voters in Washington also considered a measure to allow gay nuptials Tuesday. With just over 51 percent of precincts reporting, votes in favor of the measure were slightly ahead of votes against it, but the contest remained to close to call.

In brief remarks to a boisterous crowd in Baltimore, O’Malley, who championed the measure, described a campaign for marriage equality as a “noble battle to move Maryland forward.”

Anthony Valenzuela, 37, standing with his partner, Kent deJong, 51, said the referendum’s passage signifies that “Maryland is a pathfinder for other states. It means that the people can decide in favor of love.”

The couple said they expect to get married next year, perhaps in Iowa where deJong has family. “It allows society to recognize us as a couple,” deJong said. “Its an affirmation.”

In the first election since President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, a popular-vote win will now change the dynamics of the debate going forward, gay-rights activists said.

“It takes away the talking points that anti-marriage activists use day in and day out: that this issue can’t win at the ballot box,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Coalition, the nation’s largest gay-rights organization.

Griffin attributed the success to a new, carefully assembled coalition that united gay-rights advocates with officials at the NAACP, with clergy, and with businesses and philanthropists who hadn’t previously contributed to the gay-rights causes.

Brian Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, which fought the measures in both Maine and Maryland, conceded defeat.

“It’s very, very close, but look at the numbers in Maryland that went for Obama, and look at the numbers for us,” he said. “They barely won. We won by a much larger margin than Mitt Romney or any of the Republicans.”

In Maryland, partial returns showed the measure with a nearly 2-to-1 lead in Montgomery County and trailing slightly in Prince George’s. Support was far weaker in the more rural parts of the state.

Voters who attend church at least weekly were far more likely to be opposed than those who attend occasionally or never, according to the exit polls. Women were more likely to support the measure than men, and white voters were more likely to support it than African Americans, who split about evenly.

The campaign over Question 6 in Maryland focused heavily on African American voters, who make up a larger share of the electorate than in any other state outside the Deep South and whom polls showed as more reluctant to accept gay nuptials than white voters.

Television and radio ads aired by Marylanders for Marriage Equality, an O’Malley-backed campaign group, featured testimonials about fairness from black ministers and civil rights leaders. As of two weeks ago, the group had raised $4.5 million for its efforts, more than two and half times as much money as the leading opposition group, the Maryland Marriage Alliance, had raised for its bid to defeat Question 6.

O’Malley cast the issue in terms of equal protection, saying at a news conference Monday that Question 6 would “protect every child’s home equally under the law.” O’Malley also argued that he and lawmakers went to great lengths to include provisions in the law that protect the religious liberties of those who oppose it.

Opponents spent months networking through black and Catholic churches, trying to convert strength in the pews to muscle at the ballot box. Their less-frequent ads warned of changes to school curriculum and other consequences if voters redefined marriage.

At an event last week featuring about 75 religious leaders opposed to Question 6, Derek McCoy, the leader of the opposition group, argued that “marriage is more than what any two adults want. It is about future generations and our culture.”

The battle in Maryland drew an array of celebrities from across the country, with most offering fundraising help for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Before Tuesday, same-sex marriage was legal in the District and six states: Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa and New York.

Tuesday’s ballot measure in Washington state bears the most similarities to Maryland’s. In those states, legislatures passed a measure that petitioners pushed to a popular vote. A mail-in voting procedure in the Evergreen State means that final results there won’t be known till week’s end.

It had been three years since voters in any state were asked whether to legalize same-sex marriage — in 2009, Maine voters narrowly repealed a law to allow it that had been passed by the legislature.

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to take up several tests of same-sex marriage.

For much of his political career, O’Malley, a practicing Roman Catholic, had been on record as supporting civil unions as an alternative to gay nuptials.

O’Malley announced his support of same-sex marriage legislation in July 2011, a few months after a similar bill passed the Maryland Senate but unexpectedly fell short in the House of Delegates. This year, with O’Malley’s backing, the same-sex marriage bill passed the House with one vote to spare.

[BayGBM]

In Maine and Maryland, Victories at the Ballot Box for Same-Sex Marriage
By ERIK ECKHOLM

Voters in Maine and Maryland approved same-sex marriage on an election night that jubilant gay rights advocates called a historic turning point, the first time that marriage for gay men and lesbians has been approved at the ballot box.

While six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage through court decisions or legislative decisions, voters had rejected it more than 30 times in a row.

Results for the other two states voting on same-sex marriage, Minnesota and Washington, were still coming in late Tuesday, but rights groups said that the victories in two states and possibly more were an important sign that public opinion was shifting in their direction.

“We have made history for marriage equality by winning our first victory at the ballot box,” said Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, which raised millions of dollars for the races in the four states.

Matt McTighe, the campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, said, “A lot of families in Maine just became more stable and secure.”

At a victory party in Baltimore, supporters of Maryland’s referendum danced and cheered as balloons filled the air. “I’m so elated right now,” said Mary Bruce Leigh, 32. “This is the civil rights issue of our time, and we have succeeded in Maryland.”

In what appeared to be a close race in Minnesota, voters were asked to adopt a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman. While the state already has a law barring same-sex marriage, conservatives hoped to prevent a future Legislature or court decision from reversing it.

In Washington State, supporters of a referendum authorizing same-sex marriage appeared to have an edge in pre-election polls, but final results were not expected until later this week because ballots were still being mailed in as late as Tuesday.

Laurie Carlsson, 33, stood on a freeway overpass with a sign urging drivers to honk for the referendum.

“Seattleites do not use their horns — ever — but today they’re honking,” Ms. Carlsson said as a deafening roar erupted. “It’s making me giddy.”

It has been a constant theme of opponents of same-sex marriage that whenever it has been put before voters it has lost. In 30 states, voters have limited marriage to a man and a woman through constitutional amendments, and same-sex marriage has also been blocked in referendums like those in California in 2008 and Maine in 2009.

This year, the legislatures in Washington and Maryland approved same-sex marriage, but opponents gathered enough signatures to force referendums. In Maine, since their loss in 2009, gay rights advocates have been cultivating public opinion in one-on-one conversations, and this year sponsored their successful repeat election.

In the final week of the campaign, the opponents of marriage rights, mainly financed by the National Organization for Marriage and the Roman Catholic Church, mounted a barrage of advertising and telephone appeals in all four states, trying to convince undecided voters that “redefining marriage” would force schools to “teach gay marriage” and require businesses and churches to violate religious principles.

Rights groups have denounced those messages as misleading scare tactics and say they do not seek to redefine marriage but to end discrimination.

For many weeks, reflecting their more than threefold advantage in fund-raising nationwide, advocates of same-sex marriage have unleashed advertisements of their own in which community members say that gay and lesbian friends deserve the same chance to love and marry that others enjoy.

Pre-election polling in Washington State indicated that a slight majority of voters supported the referendum. “We have weathered their waves of attacks and not lost any ground,” said Zach Silk, the campaign manager of Washington United for Marriage, in an interview before the voting began.

Frank Schubert, who managed the campaigns to ban same-sex marriage in all four states, disputed the notion that Tuesday’s ballots were a major turning point. “The votes are very close everywhere,” he said.

[Option D]

DOPE

[chadstallion]

DOPE

no, sir.
you're confused.
that would be another thread.
the one about Colorado and pot smoking.

[BayGBM]

A Big Leap for Marriage Equality

Progress on civil rights can occur in bursts. The nation’s march toward full equality for all took an important step forward on Election Day with groundbreaking victories for same-sex marriage across the country.

Until Tuesday, no state had ever legalized same-sex marriage through a ballot referendum. This cause has been rejected more than 30 times at the ballot box, though six states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage through court rulings or legislative measures.

In a move that shows the shift in public opinion, voters in Maine and Maryland approved measures giving gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry by decisive results. Early returns in Washington State also show that voters there have passed a same-sex marriage initiative. With these victories, opponents will no longer be able to argue that the movement for marriage equality is something imposed by radical judges and legislators, who are out of touch with the popular will.

In Minnesota, meanwhile, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have enshrined the state’s existing ban on same-sex marriage in the State Constitution. In Wisconsin, voters elected a Democratic House member, Tammy Baldwin, to the United States Senate, making her the first openly gay person ever elected to the chamber.

In Iowa, voters decided to retain a State Supreme Court justice, David Wiggins, rejecting a campaign by the State Republican Party and other conservative forces to oust him because of his participation in the court’s unani(mous ruling in 2009 allowing same-sex-marriage on equal protection grounds.

Justice Wiggins’s retention, like Florida’s vote to retain three State Supreme Court justices singled out by the State Republican Party and others on the right, was a victory for judicial independence. It was also a remarkable turnaround from two years ago, when three other Iowa justices who joined in the 2009 ruling were defeated for retention, after groups opposing same-sex marriage campaigned against them. Predictions that President Obama would be politically damaged by his support for same-sex marriage did not come to pass. Instead, by standing up for equality, he energized his base and retained the broad coalition that won him a second term.

Even before these victories, the principle of fairness for gay people and their families has been gaining force in courts and statehouses. Half of Americans believe their states should recognize marriages of same-sex couples.

There is still much work to do to secure the freedom to marry in every jurisdiction and end the odious Defense of Marriage Act that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in places where it is legal. It is a moment for the opponents of civil rights for all Americans — including Congressional Republicans, who are still defending the marriage act in court — to decide whether they want to continue to stand against justice to court a dwindling share of voters.

[BayGBM]

Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage
By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would enter the national debate over same-sex marriage, agreeing to hear a pair of cases challenging state and federal laws that define marriage to include only unions of a man and a woman.

One of the cases, from California, could establish or reject a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Another case, from New York, challenges a federal law that requires the federal government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow such unions.

The court’s move comes against the backdrop of a rapid shift in public attitudes about same-sex marriage, with recent polls indicating that a majority of Americans support allowing such unions. After last month’s elections, the number of states authorizing same-sex marriage increased by half, to nine.

The court’s docket is now crowded with cases about the meaning of equality, with the new cases joining ones on affirmative action in higher education and the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Decisions in all of those cases are expected by June.

The new California case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages.

A federal judge in San Francisco agreed, issuing a broad decision that said the Constitution required the state to allow same-sex couples to marry. The decision has been stayed.

A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, also in San Francisco, affirmed the decision. But the majority relied on narrower grounds that seemed calculated to avoid Supreme Court review or, at least, attract the vote of the presumed swing member of that court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, writing for the majority, relied heavily on a 1996 majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. The voter initiative in California, known as Proposition 8, had done something similar, Judge Reinhardt wrote.

That reasoning, he added, meant that the ruling was confined to California.

“We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts,” he wrote.

“For now,” he said, “it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state Constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place unless voters there choose to revisit the question. It could affirm on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.

The second case the court agreed to hear, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, challenges a part of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Section 3 of the law defines marriage as between only a man and a woman for purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs. (Another part of the law, not before the court, says that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.)

The case concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who were married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of some $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay.

Ms. Windsor sued, and in October the federal appeals court in New York struck down the 1996 law. The decision was the second from a federal appeals court to do so, joining one in May from a court in Boston. The New York decision was the first from a federal appeals court to say that laws treating same-sex couples differently must be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny.

The Windsor case made its way the Supreme Court unusually quickly because the parties had filed an appeal from the trial court’s decision in the case, also striking down the law, even before the appeals court had ruled.

There was reason to think that Justice Elena Kagan was not free to hear an appeal from the Boston case because she had worked on it or a related case as United States solicitor general. The current solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., provided the court with a number of other options, including Windsor, probably partly to make sure a case of such importance could be heard by a full nine-member court.

The Obama administration’s attitude toward same-sex marriage and the 1996 law has shifted over time. Until last year, the Justice Department defended the law in court, as it typically does all acts of Congress. In February 2011, though, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he and President Obama had concluded that the law was unconstitutional and unworthy of defense in court, though he added that the administration would continue to enforce the law.

In May of this year, Mr. Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage.

After the Justice Department stepped aside, House Republicans intervened to defend the law. They are represented by Paul D. Clement, a former solicitor general in the Bush administration.

The new case is thus likely to feature a rematch between Mr. Clement and Mr. Verrilli, who were antagonists earlier this year in the arguments over Mr. Obama’s health care law.

[BayGBM]

Next Civil Rights Landmark

Fifty-eight years after it banned discrimination in public education, the Supreme Court has set the stage for the defining civil rights decision of this era — agreeing to hear two cases challenging laws that define marriage to exclude couples of the same sex. To us, and a growing number of Americans, the right course seems clear: that the justices continue the march toward real equality.

In one of the cases, the justices will review a ruling earlier this year by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, which struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court could leave California’s same-sex marriage ban in place, planting the court on the wrong side of justice and equality. Or, in the absence of a five-vote majority to establish a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court could affirm the narrower approach of the Ninth Circuit panel, which was confined to California.

The appellate panel reasoned that Proposition 8, as the voter initiative was known, was unconstitutional because it stripped gays, lesbians and bisexuals of the right to marry declared by the State Supreme Court. Thus it harmed “the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

The second case the Supreme Court will hear is a challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the odious 1996 law that denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples. The case concerns Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer of New York, who were married in 2007 in Canada.

Because the Defense of Marriage Act did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse when Ms. Spyer died in 2009, she was required to pay some $360,000 in federal estate taxes from which opposite-sex spouses are exempt. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, sensibly said that violated the Constitution’s promise of equal protection. The ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act, the second by a federal appeals court, said laws treating same-sex couples differently deserve heightened judicial scrutiny, like other laws that single out minorities long subjected to discrimination.

These profound legal tests have reached the nation’s highest court at a remarkable moment. There has been a string of persuasive lower federal court rulings against the Defense of Marriage Act and the denial of gay people’s freedom to marry.

A month ago, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington State became the first to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box rather than through courts or legislatures. Voters in Minnesota rejected a ballot measure that would have enshrined the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in the State Constitution.

Public opinion is shifting on this issue as more people recognize the inherent wrong in a last bastion of official discrimination. The most important hearts and minds to be won at this point belong to the nine justices.

[chadstallion]

if SCOTUS allows any more same sex marriages, it will shoot some of the regulars here into an early grave.
first BO re elected, then marriage equality.

[BayGBM]

Supreme Court Rules rules 5-4 that DOMA is unconstitutional
Law Is Seen as Violation of Equal Protection Clause
By the New York Times

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a 1996 law denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples is unconstitutional, in a sign of how rapidly the national debate over gay rights has shifted.

The decision was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, which the four liberal-leaning justices joined. (Read the decision.)

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was in the minority, as were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed.

The decision will immediately extend some federal benefits to same-sex couples, but it will also raise a series of major decisions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

The court is still expected to rule Wednesday on a second case involving same-sex marriage: whether California’s ban on it is unconstitutional.

The decision on the Defense of Marriage Act does not alter any state laws governing whether same-sex couples can marry. It instead determines whether same-sex couples that are legally married in one state receive federal benefits that apply to heterosexual married couples.

“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent. “The truth is more complicated.”

Justice Scalia read from his dissent on the bench, a step justices take in a small share of cases, typically to show that they have especially strong views.

Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that the law was “unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

[BayGBM]

Prop. 8: Supreme Court clears way for gay marriage in California
By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for same-sex marriages to resume in California as the justices, in a procedural ruling, turned away the defenders of Proposition 8.

Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said the private sponsors of Prop. 8 did not have legal standing to appeal after the ballot measure was struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco.

"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to," he said. "We decline to do so for the first time here."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan joined to form the majority.

The court’s action, while not a sweeping ruling, sends the case back to California, where state and federal judges and the state’s top officials have said same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights.

Last fall, the high court agreed to hear a last-chance appeal from the sponsors of the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to the union of a man and a woman.

Federal courts in San Francisco had struck down the measure on the grounds that it unfairly discriminated against gays and lesbians who wished to marry.

Usually, the governor and state’s lawyers defend state laws in federal court, but both Gov. Jerry Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris refused to defend Prop. 8.

Several sponsors of the ballot measure stepped in to defend the law, but there were questions about whether they had legal standing to represent the state in court.

[LurkerNoMore]

Religious retards are gnashing their teeth over this.  LOL

[BayGBM]

Religious retards are gnashing their teeth over this.  LOL

Maybe a few will commit suicide. 
Or worse, maybe they will now marry someone of the same gender. 

[OzmO]

Religious retards can sleep easy.  All gays are still going to burn  in hell, unless of course they accept Jesus as their savior and stop being gay immediately after every time they have gay sex.  Just like every time a straight person commits a non-gay sin.   Gotta love the "grace"...don't ya?

Christianity is so user friendly.  

Problem solved, move along...

[LurkerNoMore]

McWay is foaming at the mouth right now.

[Soul Crusher]

Go to love this - last year the leftists praised the court for ObamaCare,  Tuesday the leftists are melting down at the court over VRA, and today they are in gay bliss w the court over DOMA