Gay marriage issue: No action by Supreme Court

Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases : Videos

Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court took no action Friday on a series of pending appeals involving gay marriage, putting off until at least next week ... Rated: -1     Duration: 32 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:52:58 PST	World News - SCOTUS to announce plan for same sex marriage cases World News - SCOTUS to announce plan for same sex marriage cases SCOTUS to announce plan for same-sex marriage cases - Video on ... video.msnbc.msn.c... - Estados Unidos - Traduzir esta página 1 day ago -- Video ... Rated: 5     Duration: 185 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 11:04:55 PST	Dueling Letters to the Supreme Court: This Week in Prop 8 for Jan 31 Dueling Letters to the Supreme Court: This Week in Prop 8 for Jan 31 Ted Olson, a lead attorney on the case against Prop 8, sent a letter to the California Supreme Court this week, explaining why, in his opinion ... Rated: 5     Duration: 261 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:43:53 PST	Supreme Court to take up UT admissions - 5 pm News Supreme Court to take up UT admissions - 5 pm News A fight over the University of Texas' affirmative action program is the first blockbuster case on the court's calendar, with argument ... Rated: 5     Duration: 107 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:52:50 PDT
Citizens United, Super PACs, Health Care, Proposition 8, Same-Sex Marriage (2012) Citizens United, Super PACs, Health Care, Proposition 8, Same-Sex Marriage (2012) thefilmarchive.org February 7, 2012 With the exception of churches and houses of worship, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates ... Rated: -1     Duration: 2962 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Fri, 03 Aug 2012 01:45:16 PDT	2012 Election Will Drastically Impact Supreme Court 2012 Election Will Drastically Impact Supreme Court --Adam Winkler, Professor of Constitutional Law at the UCLA Law School, joins David to talk about the drastic impact that the upcoming ... Rated: 4.7014923     Duration: 532 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:00:12 PDT	Prop 8 Drama - (Overturned 4 August 2010) Prop 8 Drama - (Overturned 4 August 2010) the presidential memorandum. Gay and lesbian activists had expected Obama to take action some time in June, which is gay pride month. Tags ... Rated: 4.7852049     Duration: 143 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Tue, 26 May 2009 17:53:22 PDT	Supreme Court: The Term in Review (2010-2011), Part 1 of 2 Supreme Court: The Term in Review (2010-2011), Part 1 of 2 The review of this term's US Supreme Court decisions most likely to affect the work of federal judges will look at opinions deciding First ... Rated: 5     Duration: 3358 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:32:27 PDT
Supreme Court: The Term in Review (2009-2010) Part 2 of 2 Supreme Court: The Term in Review (2009-2010) Part 2 of 2 A review of this term's US Supreme Court decisions most likely to affect the work of federal judges examines opinions deciding First, Fifth ... Rated: 4.5     Duration: 3064 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:54:06 PDT	2006: Romney on Repealing Marriage Equality in Massachusetts (2006) 2006: Romney on Repealing Marriage Equality in Massachusetts (2006) Romney said each state should decide on their own about same-sex marriage. When Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, however, Mitt reversed ... Rated: 4     Duration: 66 seconds     Video type: YouTube     Hosted by: www.youtube.com on Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:23:59 PDT

Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases : Photo Gallery

Supreme Court Takes No Action Yet on Same-Sex Marriage Appeal ... Supreme Court Takes No Action Yet on Same-Sex Marriage Appeal ... Supreme Court to meet	Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals ... Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals ... Same sex male couples at the	10News - Supreme Court: No action yet on same-sex marriage - News ... 10News - Supreme Court: No action yet on same-sex marriage - News ... Supreme Court reviews same-sex	LGBT Weekly LGBT Weekly Supreme Court takes no action
Supreme Court takes no action on same sex marriage yet | abc30. Supreme Court takes no action on same sex marriage yet | abc30. Supreme Court takes no action	Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals - CNN. Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals - CNN. Supreme Court takes no action	Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals - CNN. Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals - CNN. Supreme Court takes no action	Supreme Court Takes No Action On Gay Marriage Ban DOMA, Prop 8 ... Supreme Court Takes No Action On Gay Marriage Ban DOMA, Prop 8 ... Supreme Court Takes No Action
SCOTUS: No Action On Gay Marriage – The Brenner Brief SCOTUS: No Action On Gay Marriage – The Brenner Brief The Supreme Court took no	Supreme Court considers gay marriage cases | GlobalPost Supreme Court considers gay marriage cases | GlobalPost supreme court gay marriage	Supreme Court takes no action on gay marriage | NorthIowaToday. Supreme Court takes no action on gay marriage | NorthIowaToday. Supreme Court takes no action	Supreme Court takes no action in DOMA or Prop. 8 cases | Gay Salt ... Supreme Court takes no action in DOMA or Prop. 8 cases | Gay Salt ... Supreme Court takes no action
Court: no action yet on same-sex marriage - Local News - Orlando ... Court: no action yet on same-sex marriage - Local News - Orlando ... The Supreme Court took no	Supreme Court take no action yet on same-sex marriage appeal ... Supreme Court take no action yet on same-sex marriage appeal ... The U.S. Supreme Court this	Gay marriage issue: No action by Supreme Court | abc7. Gay marriage issue: No action by Supreme Court | abc7. A same-sex couple is seen	US: Supreme Court delays action on same-sex marriage appeals ... US: Supreme Court delays action on same-sex marriage appeals ... The US Supreme Court took no
Brazil: report of the Universal Periodic Review by the Plenary of the Human Rights Council - IMG_3936 Brazil: report of the Universal Periodic Review by the Plenary of the Human Rights Council - IMG_3936 Brazil: report of the Universal Periodic Review by the Plenary of the Human Rights Council - IMG_3936	SUPREME COURT TAKES NO ACTION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES SUPREME COURT TAKES NO ACTION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES In an "orders list" issued early on Monday, the court made no mention of any of the same-sex marriage cases. The court could reschedule those cases for further consideration at its weekly conference on Friday. The justices sometimes hold especially ...	Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage When the nine Supreme Court justices retreated behind closed doors today for their regularly scheduled conference, they considered the issue of gay marriage and were widely expected to decide whether to take up a case that could ultimately determine ...	Gay marriage issue: No action by Supreme Court Gay marriage issue: No action by Supreme Court The Supreme Court released its order of cases it would be considering, but there was no mention of the gay marriage cases. It was unclear if the high court wanted more time to consider the cases, but for Friday, no action would be taken by the Supreme ...
Breaking: SUPREME COURT TAKES NO ACTION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES Today Breaking: SUPREME COURT TAKES NO ACTION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASES Today Moments ago we learned that the Supreme Court took no action today on the handful of marriage equality cases begging for its attention. We could have news on the conference as early as Monday, with most SCOTUS analysts believing Friday, December 7 ...	Supreme Court to Look at a Gene Issue Supreme Court to Look at a Gene Issue WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would decide whether human genes may be patented. The justices considered but took no action on requests that the court hear one or more cases concerning same-sex marriage.	Court: no action yet on same-sex marriage Court: no action yet on same-sex marriage The Supreme Court took no action Friday on a pending series of appeals over the divisive issue of same-sex marriage. The justices ... The court on Friday did accept for review two unrelated cases, including an appeal of whether human genes are patentable.	US Supreme Court expected to decide action on Calif. gay-marriage case US Supreme Court expected to decide action on Calif. gay-marriage case More than two years after a federal judge in San Francisco ruled California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide Friday if it will take up the landmark gay-marriage case. If it elects not to ... "Allowing the ...
Californians on Pins and Needles As Supreme Court Takes Time on Prop 8 Case Californians on Pins and Needles As Supreme Court Takes Time on Prop 8 Case ... awaiting word on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the state's ban on gay marriage. The high court took no action Friday on a series of pending appeals involving gay marriage, putting off until at least next week a decision on which cases ...	Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court Awaiting SCOTUS on Same-Sex Marriage: Clarifying What's Before the Court The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review two sets of decisions by lower courts involving same-sex marriage. ... If the court takes the Prop 8 case it could do all kinds of things with it. ... Vikram Amar: No. the First Circuit in its ...	Gay marriage cases could see Supreme Court action Gay marriage cases could see Supreme Court action The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples. The ...	High court still undecided on whether to hear Defense of Marriage Act cases High court still undecided on whether to hear Defense of Marriage Act cases The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday didn't yet announce whether it plans to hear controversial cases related to gay marriage. The nine justices met in a conference to decide which cases to hear in the coming months, but took no action on 10 same-sex ...
Should the Supreme Court Review California's Gay Marriage Ban? [POLL] Should the Supreme Court Review California's Gay Marriage Ban? [POLL] article[new_asset_attachment_attributes][user_id]. new_asset_attachment_attributes. The US Supreme Court decided Friday to take no action on 10 cases across the nation regarding gay marriage, including California's Proposition 8. If the dismissal of ...	No word from court on same-sex marriage No word from court on same-sex marriage The U.S. Supreme Court was unexpectedly silent Friday about whether it will take its first look at same-sex marriage, in cases involving California's Proposition 8 and a law banning federal recognition and benefits for married same-sex couples. The ...	Gay marriage takes next steps Gay marriage takes next steps And the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide next week whether to consider legalizing gay marriage. The Court will decide which cases they'll hear in what's expected to be a landmark decision. There are several options: five separate Defense of Marriage ...	Prop. 8 challenger predicts US Supreme Court will overturn state's same-sex ... Prop. 8 challenger predicts US Supreme Court will overturn state's same-sex ... "This is a civil rights case of the same importance as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia," Boies said. The two cases were the court's unanimous decisions outlawing school segregation in 1954 and striking down a ban on interracial ...
10 marriage equality cases go before Supreme Court 10 marriage equality cases go before Supreme Court watching some major developments at the u.s. supreme court where the nine justices are behind closed doors considering whether to take up cases that will impact same-sex marriage in america. ten marriage equality cases are on the high court 's menu ...

Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases : Latest News, Information, Answers and Websites

LETTERS; Sunday Dialogue: Using Race in Admissions

How should the Supreme Court rule on affirmative action? To the Editor: The Supreme Court will hear arguments this month in a case with the potential to end the use of race as a factor in college admissions ( Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin ). Conservatives are eager for a sweeping ruling accomplishing just that. But their zeal betrays - Sunday Dialogue on how the Supreme Court should rule on affirmative action. Drawing (M)0

Republicans are not good people. ?

Prove these statements wrong.  If you think it is untrue then prove it. Why do people always forget that... Republicans support government grants to faith-based and private charitable organizations. They opposes universal health care. They oppose labor unions.. They oppose increasing the minimum wage. They have supported various bills to strip some or all federal courts of the ability to hear certain types of cases. These have included removing federal review of the recognition of same-sex marriage, the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance,, and the rights of detainees in Guantanamo Bay.  The Supreme Court overruled the last of these limitations in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Republicans support increased oil drilling in protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They favor faith-based initiatives.  They are against affirmative action for women and minorities..  They favor capital punishment.. They oppose laws regulating guns. They have denounced the public school system and the teachers unions.  They opposed the creation of the United States Department of Education when it was created in 1979. They have supported prayer in public schools  They have backed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. They are pro-life and oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds. They oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos, while arguing for applying research money into adult stem cell or amniotic stem cell research. President Bush, who said the research "crossed a moral boundary" They supported a Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  They opposed government recognition of same-sex unions. They have opposed LGBT people serving openly in the military. They opposed Woodrow Wilsons intervention in World War I and his attempt to create the League of Nations.  They opposed the interv
Answer: Republicans support government grants to faith-based and private charitable organizations. ....... Faith based organizations promote positive morals beneficial to society. They opposes universal health care. ........ Universal health care is just another way of draining the government of money by crack heads who don't want to work yet sit around having sex with the workers white daughters. They oppose labor unions.. ....... Labor unions are usually run by crooked representatives who are misusing the funds anyway. They oppose increasing the minimum wage. ....... Minimum wage needs increasing. Cost of living has doubled since 2000, yet wages have remained the same. They have supported various bills to strip some or all federal courts of the ability to hear certain types of cases. These have included removing federal review of the recognition of same-sex marriage, the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance,, and the rights of detainees in Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court overruled the last of these limitations in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. ....... The states were left the right to make laws based on morals [10th amendment]. Morals are beneficial to society. If you don't think states should make laws based on morals then would you want it to be legal for another man to have sex with your wife, 10 year old daughter, or you pet Chihuahua? Homosexuality is perversion. Nuff said. Republicans support increased oil drilling in protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ....... So you would rather our money go to Opec and they control how much you pay for fuel and oil? The price of everything is based on oil prices. You can now by half of what you could in 2000 for $100 because of lack of drilling in the U. S. They favor faith-based initiatives. ....... Already mentioned above They are against affirmative action for women and minorities.. ...... That's a lie. They favor capital punishment.. ...... Removes the burden from the tax payers to feed their sorry asses. They oppose laws regulating guns. ..... The right to bear arms was to protect the people from a corrupt government. Without guns they could take all of your rights, not to mention some big black guy would want to make you his wife he could. They have denounced the public school system and the teachers' unions. ........ Not true. They opposed the creation of the United States Department of Education when it was created in 1979. ...... I will not look that up. Sound bogus. They have supported prayer in public schools ...... Every founding forefather of our constitution knew the importance of religion in society. A moral society is a healthy society. They have backed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. They are pro-life and oppose abortion on religious or moral grounds. ...... So I guess you are saying it's not okay to put convicted criminals to death, but you are saying it's okay to kill innocent babies? They oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos, while arguing for applying research money into adult stem cell or amniotic stem cell research. President Bush, who said the research "crossed a moral boundary" ...... I'm have no opinion on the subject. They supported a Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. ..... Already mentioned above. Sexual immorality is wrong. You don't see me asking to have bestiality, adultery, or pedophilia made legal do you? They opposed government recognition of same-sex unions. ...... Already addressed They have opposed LGBT people serving openly in the military. ...... I wouldn't want to be in the shower with some freak viewing me as a sexual object. They opposed Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I and his attempt to create the League of Nations. ....... I have no opinion of that other than I am opposed to it today. I'd much rather go drop a bomb in Iran and Iraq and stop the nonsense of Christian persecution.
Category: NASCAR

Napolitano Appears to Straddle Political Divide

The day before she mounted her first campaign for public office, Janet Napolitano, then a federal prosecutor, held a news conference with one of the most polarizing figures in law enforcement: Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. Ms. Napolitano had her sights set on a run for Arizona attorney general. Sheriff Arpaio had been under investigation - By GINGER THOMPSON; Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Contra-Contraception

The English writer Daniel Defoe is best remembered today for creating the ultimate escapist fantasy, Robinson Crusoe, but in 1727 he sent the British public into a scandalous fit with the publication of a nonfiction work called Conjugal Lewdness: or, Matrimonial Whoredom. After apparently being asked to tone down the title for a subsequent - Russell Shorto article on mounting campaign by conservative groups to reduce access to contraceptives, even for married couples, in order to keep sex and procreation bound together; says opponents of contraception believe it encourages sexual promiscuity, homosexuality and other perceived forms of sexual deviance and preoccupation with sex that is unhealthful even within marriage; says they see separation of sex from procreation as attempt to serve selfish demands of individual at expense of family and society; discusses support campaign has found in Republican Congress and Bush administration; says idea of prescribing abstinence for those not having children within marriage has even become primary element of Pres Bushs overseas AIDS relief program, with disastrous results, according to some experts; photos (L) - Russell Shorto, a contributing writer, has written for the magazine about the anti-gay-marriage movement and religion in the workplace. - By Russell Shorto

Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage - ABC News

2 days ago ... Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage ... At issue in the cases is Proposition 8, the controversial 2008 California ballot initiative that ...

Supreme Court Takes No Action on Prop. 8, Gay Marriage Cases ...

2 days ago ... The U.S. Supereme Court made no announcement Friday of its decisions on cases pertaining to gay marriage, according to news reports.

Supreme Court takes no action on gay marriage - Nation/World ...

2 days ago ... The Supreme Court took no action Friday on a series of pending ... the court is almost certain to review at least one of the gay-marriage cases.

Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals ...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court took no action Friday on a pending series of appeals over the divisive issue of same-sex marriage.The justices had a closed-door conference to consider whether to accept for ...

No Action Today from Supreme Court on DOMA, Prop 8 Cases ...

The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage cases now on the docket. It did agree to rule on whether taking a human gene out of the body ... Alternatively, the Court could wait to announce anything about any of these cases until the justices are ready to announce what action they have decided to take regarding all of them. 3. The Court may have decided that it needed to discuss the cases ...

Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals ...

2 days ago ... The Supreme Court took no action Friday on a pending series of appeals ... will begin considering several cases involving same-sex marriage, ...

what does the republican party stand for?

Answer: "The Republican Party believes that making law is the province of the legislature and that judges, especially the Supreme Court, should not "legislate from the bench." Most Republicans point to Roe v. Wade as a case of judicial activism, where the court overturned most laws restricting abortion on the basis of a right to privacy inferred from the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Some Republicans have actively sought to block judges who they see as being activist judges and they have sought the appointment of judges who claim to practice judicial restraint. Other Republicans, though, argue that it is the right of judges to extend the interpretation of the Constitution and judge actions by the legislative or executive branches as legal or unconstitutional on previously unarticulated grounds. The Republican party has supported various bills within the last decade to strip some or all federal courts of the ability to hear certain types of cases, in an attempt to limit judicial review. These jurisdiction stripping laws have included removing federal review of the recognition of same-sex marriage with the Marriage Protection Act,[2] the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance with the Pledge Protection Act, and the rights of detainees in Guantanamo Bay in the Detainee Treatment Act. The last of these limitations was overruled by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Compared with Democrats, many Republicans believe in a more robust version of federalism with greater limitations placed upon federal power and a larger role reserved for the States. Following this view on federalism, Republicans often take a less expansive reading of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, such as in the opinion of William Rehnquist in United States v. Lopez. Many Republicans on the more libertarian wing wish for a more dramatic narrowing of Commerce Clause power by revisiting, among other cases, Wickard v. Filburn, a case which held that growing wheat on a farm for consumption on the same farm fell under congressional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several States". President George W. Bush is a proponent of the unitary executive theory and has cited it within his signing statements about legislation passed by Congress.[3] The administration's interpretation of the unitary executive theory was called seriously into question by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the President does not have sweeping powers to override or ignore laws through his power as commander in chief,[4] stating "the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails."[5] Following the ruling, the Bush administration has sought Congressional authorization for programs started only on executive mandate, as was the case with the Military Commissions Act, or abandoned illegal programs it had previously asserted executive authority to enact, in the case of the National Security Agency domestic wiretapping program."
Category: Other - Cultures & Groups

Vote no on proposition 8 equality for all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yhA0Xd0vK0&feature=related all of you need to watch this that would/said yes to this proposition. those that say yes are extremely ignorant I know this was over 2 years ago but in the supreme courts idiots are fighting to make it illegal.
Answer: Of course gay federal district judge Vaughn Walker ruled the will of the people of California irrelevant and the Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional. Convened in a San Francisco courtroom, with a parade of political activists dressed up as experts testifying against the people's mandate, a blind man and his deaf dog could see the direction this judicial train wreck was heading. Ed Whelan on NRO wrote: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/230960/judge-walker-s-anti-prop-8-sham-trial/ed-whelan """Walker's entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making Scopes-type show trial of Prop 8's sponsors. Walker's actions, taken together, have only one sensible explanation: that Walker (had) been hell-bent from the outset to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. """ The fact that higher courts had to intervene at several points to reverse the direction of Judge Walker's aggressive tactics seems indicative of his intentions. A writ of mandamus was issued by a Ninth Circuit panel (comprised entirely of Clinton appointees) to derail intrusive discovery into the Proposition 8 sponsor's internal communications- a violation of their right to associate. In addition, the Supreme Court issued a stay of Walker's intention to have the proceedings broadcast. Follow Ed Whelan's well-supported documentation of Judge Vaughn's obvious agenda driven approach to the trial here http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos as well. Vaughn's unwillingness to recuse himself from a case where he couldn't possibly remain neutral seems inexcusable. As Whelan points out, merely being gay should not have precluded the possibility of the judge remaining neutral. It is reported (in a an article from the Los AngelesTimes cited by Whelan that has since been scrubbed from the site), however, that Vaughn remains in a relationship with a male physician, and may be in a long-term relationship. If that's so, then the question arises as to whether Walker himself has any interest in entering into a same-sex marriage in California. If he does, then the provisions of federal law requiring that a judge recuse himself when he knows that he has " any other interest [other than financial, that is] that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." It seems highly likely that the people will prevail upon appeal. But one couldn't possibly over-estimate the importance of our leaders in Congress performing their due diligence in the appointment process for federal judges given lifetime tenure in positions such as that held by rogue Judge Vaughn. o_O.
Category: Government

Is finally US judge rejected gay marriage ban?

Its nice to hear it in africa congrats cowboy!
Answer: One federal judge has rejected it, but the opponents of same sex marriage has appealed to the higher courts. There is a very real & definite chance that this case will eventually go up to the US Supreme court. So, although this 1st judge has ruled it unconstitutional, whichever side loses the argument will continue to appeal. The judge has the option of making his decision effective immediately, but it looks like he is ordering a stay (no action or marriages to take place) until the next federal court hears the case.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

My knowledge of laws & politics is limited, so if gay marriage is legalized, would it stay legal?

As in, could someone in power (like a new President or something) come along and make it illegal again??? @Obsecure Reference, Yeah see, I dont know jack about politics/laws and how they work....XD
Answer: It is rather complex. Marriage laws are set at the state level. All the states must operate under the federal constitution and laws, and any federal law trumps state law. For example, medical marijuana has been legalized in several states, but under federal law marijuana is a controlled substance and state-legal dispensaries are being shut down by the feds. If a state grants a marriage, under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution, all other states must honor that marriage even if it would be deemed illegal in their state. For example, if some state granted a marriage between a 12 year old and her brother, all other states must accept that as a legal marriage. HOWEVER, in the 1980's Hawaii was poised to approve legislation granting same-sex marriages. Congress lept into action and created the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which gave states the ability to deny marriages performed elsewhere if they were illegal in their state. That law has ONLY been applied to same sex marriages legally performed in states where they are permitted, and violated the Full Faith And Credit clause of the US Constitution. Unfortunately, it will probably take a decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn DOMA (since Congress seems unwilling to reverse the discriminatory law) and court cases take a long time to wind through the system. Some states have voted in state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Several of these states are now regretting that hasty decision as the population has shifted toward acceptance. California had legal same sex marriages for a brief time until a new law was enacted by popular majority vote to ban them. A court case is slowly working through that state, but signs are that the law will be overturned, either by court decision or by another popular vote. A President cannot create laws. He signs and validates laws that are written by Congress. Neither can he invalidate laws. A President can dictate policy or suggest laws. President Clinton created Don't Ask Don't Tell when he was in office with the intention of letting gay servicemen and women serve without fear of reprisal or investigation (unfortunately, it had the opposite effect) and which President Obama has just repealed allowing servicemembers of all orientations to serve openly. President Obama has informed the Justice department to stop enforcing DOMA and has stated it should be repealed, but he has no direct power to remove the law.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Supreme Court Takes No Action Yet on Same-Sex Marriage - KTXL

WASHINGTON (CNN)- The Supreme Court took no action Friday on a pending series of appeals over the divisive issue of same-sex marriage. The justices had a closed-door conference to consider whether to accept for ...

TEXT; Obamas News Conference

The following is a transcript of President Obamas news conference in the East Wing, as provided by the White House. PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, everybody. Have a seat, please. I just want to say a few words about the economy before I take your questions. There are a lot of folks out there who are still struggling with the effects of the

The Presidents Courthouse

WASHINGTON -- The duty of the Justice Department is to defend statutes that have been passed by Congress, unless there is some very compelling reason not to, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said during his 2009 confirmation hearings. Very compelling is a high bar, and for good reason. The executive branch is ordinarily in the business - By ADAM LIPTAK

At some point in the future, what doesnt the US just adopt an illegal immigrant amendement?

We have had attempt at a possible abortion amendment and a same-sex marriage amendment, so why not an illegal immigrant amendment. If there is an amendment saying that illegals cant stay here under any circumstances, then states would not have to adopt their own immigration laws, because whatever is in the US constitution as an amendment is final. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the Executive government or legislative government does not follow Through on seeing the amendment being enforced then the Supreme Court would have to intervene.
Answer: You really don't have any idea how the government actually works, do you? First of all, amendments are very difficult to get passed. There is wide disagreement on immigration issues even within the political parties. The kinds of majorities you need for an amendment are impossible. Once there is an amendment, it doesn't just automatically do much. Amendments are usually written in broad platitudes and require legislation to flesh them out so actions can actually be taken based on them. For example, everyone is guaranteed a speedy trial, but the definition of "speedy" is different in each State and they all have their own statutes that govern it. If the Federal or State governments didn't live up ot obligations in the Constitution, that doesn't automatically mean the Courts can intervene. The Courts can only hear a case in controversy. That means someone has to be wronged as an individual (not merely by virtue of being a citizen or a taxpayer, but personally and individually wronged) and then they have to sue before the Courts can even decide. And even then, they are only empowered to settle that situation and interpret any laws necessary to do so. They can't just "step in". But beyond all of that, the "supreme law of the land" doesn't just apply to the Constitution. The Supremacy clause also applies to federal laws. The Federal government is responsible for setting immigration policy. States are prohibited from intervening and they are prohibited from violating Federal law. That's already in the Constitution, which is why the Federal government is suing Arizona and other States for infringing on their domain to govern immigration policy. If you don't like the way the Federal government is handling immigration, take the matter up with your Federal representatives, not your State representatives.
Category: Politics

Social Initiatives on State Ballots Could Draw Attention to Presidential Race

Divisive social issues will be on the ballot in several states in November, including constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in Arizona, California and Florida, and limitations on abortion in California, Colorado and South Dakota. Although research indicates that ballot measures do not drastically alter voter turnout, they have begun - Divisive social issues on several state ballots have begun attracting attention of both presidential campaigns, even though research indicates that ballot measures do not drastically affect voter turnout; at least 108 measures are on November ballots, down from 204 in 2006, and at least 30 could be added as signatures are validated; same-sex marriage and abortion amendments are likely to attract most attention; photos (M) - By IAN URBINA

Supreme Court takes no action on same sex marriage - Yahoo! News

2 days ago ... Watch the video Supreme Court takes no action on same sex marriage on Yahoo ! News . There has been no announcement today from the ...

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale??

Actualing Ruling. and Significance of Homosexuality
Answer: Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the New Jersey Supreme Court's application of the New Jersey public accommodations law, which had forced the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale. When he was a student at Rutgers University, Dale took part in a seminar on gay youth.[1] He was expelled from Scouting after BSA officials saw coverage of the seminar in a local newspaper and Dale was quoted as stating he was gay. [2] The Supreme Court held that the lower court's decision unconstitutionally violated the rights of BSA, specifically the freedom of association, which allows a private organization to exclude whomever it wishes. The case was argued on April 26, 2000 and was decided on June 28, 2000. Dale was represented by Evan Wolfson, an attorney and noted gay/lesbian rights advocate whom Time magazine named one of the "100 most influential people in the world" in 2004. In addition to representing Dale, Wolfson has also worked on a number of high profile cases seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages. The Boy Scouts of America were represented by attorney George Davidson, a partner in the New York-based law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed. Davidson is a former President of the Legal Aid Society and current chair of the Federal Defenders of New York. Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Majority Opinion 3 Dissenting Opinion 4 See also 5 References [edit] Background The Boy Scouts of America is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people. It asserts that homosexuality is inconsistent with those values. James Dale is an adult whose position as assistant Scoutmaster of a New Jersey troop was revoked when the Boy Scouts learned that he is openly gay and a gay rights activist. Dale, an Eagle Scout, filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, alleging, among other things, that the Boy Scouts had violated the state statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The case went to the New Jersey Supreme Court which ruled against the Boy Scouts, saying that they violated the State's public accommodations law by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. Among other rulings, the court (1) held that application of that law did not violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' ability to carry out their purposes; (2) determined that New Jersey has a compelling interest in eliminating the destructive consequences of discrimination from society, and that its public accommodations law abridges no more speech than is necessary to accomplish its purpose; and (3) held that Dale's reinstatement did not compel the Boy Scouts to express any message. The Boy Scouts appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to determine whether the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violated the First Amendment. [edit] Majority Opinion Chief Justice William RehnquistChief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion. It relied heavily upon an earlier case, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984). In that decision the supreme court said: "Consequently, we have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." This right, the Roberts decision continues, is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas. Government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is "intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association" like a "regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, "freedom of association ... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." However, to determine whether a group is protected by the First Amendment's expressive associational right, it must first be determined whether the group engages in "expressive association." After reviewing the Scout Promise and Scout Law the court decided that the general mission of the Boy Scouts is clear: "[T]o instill values in young people." The Boy Scouts seek to instill these values by having its adult leaders spend time with the youth members, instructing and engaging them in activities like camping, fishing etc. During the time spent with the youth members, the Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters inculcate them with the Boy Scouts' values--both expressly and by example. It seems indisputable that an association that seeks to transmit such a system of values engages in expressive activity. First, associations do not have to associate for the "purpose" of disseminating a certain message in order to be entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. An association must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired in order to be entitled to protection. Second, even if the Boy Scouts discourages Scout leaders from disseminating views on sexual issues the First Amendment protects the Boy Scouts' method of expression. If the Boy Scouts wishes Scout leaders to avoid questions of sexuality and teach only by example, this fact does not negate the sincerity of its belief discussed above. Third, the First Amendment simply does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group's policy to be "expressive association." The Boy Scouts takes an official position with respect to same-sex relationships, and that is sufficient for First Amendment purposes. The presence of an openly gay activist in an assistant Scoutmaster's uniform sends a distinctly different message from the presence of a heterosexual assistant Scoutmaster who is on record as disagreeing with Boy Scouts policy. The Boy Scouts has a First Amendment right to choose to send one message but not the other. The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops, or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks, does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court further ruled that the New Jersey Supreme Court had interpreted too broadly the term public accommodation in the New Jersey statute at question. Finally, the decision concludes: "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization's expression does not justify the State's effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization's expressive message. While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government." [edit] Dissenting Opinion The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Justice John Paul Stevens Evan Wolfson, attorney for James DaleJustice Stevens dissented from the Court's decision. He first observed that "every state law prohibiting discrimination is designed to replace prejudice with principle." Justice Brandeis had observed in New State Ice Company v. Liebman that it "is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." In Stevens's opinion, the Court's decision interfered with New Jersey's experiment. However, Justice Stevens's first point was that the Boy Scouts' ban on gay members hardly followed from its founding principles. The Boy Scouts sought to instill "values" in young people, "to prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime in achieving their full potential." The Scout Oath and the Scout Law, which set forth the Scouts' central tenets, assist in this goal. One of these tenets is that a Scout is "morally straight." Another is that a Scout is "clean." As these terms were defined in the Scout Handbook, Justice Stevens said, "it is plain as the light of day that neither one of these principles -- 'morally straight' and 'clean' -- says the slightest thing about homosexuality. Indeed, neither term in the Boy Scouts' Law and Oath expresses any position whatsoever on sexual matters." What guidance the Boy Scouts gave to the adult leaders that have direct contact with the Scouts themselves urged those leaders to avoid discussing sexual matters. "Scouts... are directed to receive their sex education at home or in school, but not from the organization." Scoutmasters, in turn, are directed to direct "curious adolescents" to their family, religious leaders, doctors, or other professionals. The Boy Scouts had gone so far as to devise specific guidelines for Scoutmasters. (1) Do not advise Scouts about sexual matters, because it is outside the expertise and comfort level of most Scoutmasters. (2) If a Scout brings specific questions to his Scoutmaster, the Scoutmaster should answer within his comfort level, remembering that a "boy who appears to be asking about sexual intercourse... may really only be worried about pimples." (3) Boys with "sexual problems" should be referred to an appropriate professional. Furthermore, the Boy Scouts is an ecumenical organization, and should not be seen to have a coherent message regarding homosexuality for this reason. "Because a number of religious groups do not view homosexuality as immoral or wrong and reject discrimination against homosexuals, it is exceedingly difficult to believe that BSA nonetheless adopts a single particular religious or moral philosophy when it comes to sexual orientation." A 1978 internal Boy Scouts document showed that it was unaware of any gay employees or volunteers, and avowed the Boy Scouts' policy to exclude gay people from volunteering in the absence of laws to the contrary. The majority had focused on the part that reaffirmed the Boy Scouts' policy against allowing gay people to volunteer; Justice Stevens, on the other hand, saw four aspects of this 1978 document that bore on a "proper disposition of this case." First, all the 1978 document did was adopt an exclusionary membership policy, and that alone had never allowed a free association claim to prevail. Second, the 1978 document was never public, unlike the more ambiguous Scout Oath and Scout Law. Third, the 1978 document expressly allowed for the possibility that the Boy Scouts might have to accede to other laws that one day might protect gay people from discrimination. Fourth, the 1978 document merely said that being gay was "inappropriate," without "connect[ing] that statement to a shared goal or expressive activity." To the extent the majority relied on other statements of the Boy Scouts made after it had revoked Dale's membership, Justice Stevens found those statements to be irrelevant. Justice Stevens wrote, "Indeed, in this case there is no evidence that the young Scouts in Dale's troop, or members of their families, were even aware of his sexual orientation, either before or after his public statements at Rutgers University." One of those statements, a brief attempt in 1991 and 1992 to link its exclusionary membership to the terms "morally straight" and "clean," was particularly ineffective for Justice Stevens. He condemned it for failing to explain how being gay was "incompatible with being 'morally straight' and 'clean.'" Stevens found "no evidence that this view was part of any collective effort to foster beliefs about homosexuality." In light of the ambiguoty of the Boy Scouts' prior statements about being gay, how could Dale -- or any other member of the public -- have known that excluding gay people as members was a core aspect of its organizational beliefs? The Court had recognized a right of expressive association, which must, by necessity, express something. But with respect to the right of assembly, not all expression has been protected to the same degree. The Court had previously ruled that the Jaycees could not maintain a single-sex membership policy in the face of a Minnesota law that required places of public accommodation to be open to members of both sexes, and the Rotary Club in the face of California's Civil Rights Law. From these cases, Justice Stevens discerned the principle that the First Amendment only forces state antidiscrimiation laws to yield to an exclusionary membership policy if the law seriously burdened such a policy, and exclusions based on sex are not seriously burdened by such laws. For Justice Stevens, the Boy Scouts' claim was even weaker because it had not produced any evidence that one of its expressive goals was to disapprove of homosexuality. Thus, Justice Stevens could not understand the majority's rule under which it deferred to the organization's statement of its expressive goal and inquired no further. "An organization can adopt the message of its choice, and it is not this Court's place to disagree with it. But we must inquire whether the group is, in fact, expressive a message (whatever it may be) and whether that message (if one is expressed) is significantly affected by a State's antidiscrimination law." This inquiry is not compatible with deferring to an organization's description of what its expressive goal is. "[U]nless one is prepared to turn the right to associate into a free pass out of antidiscrimination laws, an independent inquiry is a necessity."
Category: Other - Politics & Government

THE LISTINGS | MAY 4 - MAY 10

Selective Listings by critics of The New York Times of new and noteworthy cultural events in the New York metropolitan region this week. * denotes a highly recommended film, concert, show or exhibition. Theater Approximate running times are in parentheses. Theaters are in Manhattan unless otherwise noted. Full reviews of current shows, additional

Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage - ABC News Radio

Supreme Court Takes No Action on Gay Marriage. Comments Off Share Article. iStockphoto/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- When the nine Supreme Court justices retreated behind closed doors Friday for their regularly ...

No action on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog

No action on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage pleas now on the docket. It did agree to rule on whether taking a ...

Is There A Post-Abortion Syndrome?

Early on a a windy Saturday morning in November, Rhonda Arias drove her Dodge Caravan past a Wal-Mart at the end of her block and onto the Interstate. She was beginning the 50-mile drive from her house in southwest Houston to Plane State Jail, where she is, as she puts it, an abortion-recovery counselor. To Arias, that means helping women at - Emily Bazelon article on new strategy being pursued by opponents of Roe v Wade: switching focus from suffering of fetus to that of woman and arguing that since abortion harms woman psychologically, access to it cannot be a right; notes wealth of research showing that overwhelming majority of women who have abortions feel relieved afterwards and that psychological risks posed by abortion are no greater than risks of carrying unwanted pregnancy to term; notes resistance to new strategy from opponents of abortion, who feel it undermines absolutist moral argument against abortion; discusses abortion-recovery counseling as practiced by Rhonda Arias, opponent of abortion rights who attributes troubles in her life to her abortions, as well as counseling that some abortion providers have begun to offer to women who are torn over their decisions; notes that new strategy can been seen in South Dakotas informed-consent law, now before federal appeals court, which requires physicians to give patients written state-approved information that supplies link between abortion and increased risk of suicide and that states that abortion will terminate life of whole, separate, unique, living human being; photos (L) - Emily Bazelon is a senior editor at Slate and frequently writes about the law and science. Her last feature article for the magazine was about Wendy Mogel, a psychologist who uses Jewish teachings in her practice. - By Emily Bazelon

SUPREME COURT: NO ACTION ON GAY MARRIAGE - Balitang ...

There are ten pending appeals that have to do with same sex marriage issues. But the Supreme Court's nine justices surprised observers when they took no action. While they did discuss the issue, they made no decision on ...

i need help understanding this clause?

i just need a simple explanation of the full faith and credit clause..just basically what it means. i found this, but its a bit confusing to me still: The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The statute that implements the clause, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738, further specifies that "a states preclusion rules should control matters originally litigated in that state." The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that judicial decisions rendered by the courts in one state are recognized and honored in every other state. It also prevents parties from moving to another state to escape enforcement of a judgment or to relitigate a controversy already decided elsewhere, a practice known as forum shopping. In drafting the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Framers of the Constitution were motivated by a desire to unify their new country while preserving the autonomy of the states. To that end, they sought to guarantee that judgments rendered by the courts of one state would not be ignored by the courts of other states. The Supreme Court reiterated the Framers intent when it held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded any further litigation of a question previously decided by an Illinois court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935). The Court held that by including the clause in the Constitution, the Framers intended to make the states "integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin." The Full Faith and Credit Clause is invoked primarily to enforce judgments. When a valid judgment is rendered by a court that has jurisdiction over the parties, and the parties receive proper notice of the action and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that the judgment receive the same effect in other states as in the state where it is entered. A party who obtains a judgment in one state may petition the court in another state to enforce the judgment. When this is done, the parties do not relitigate the issues, and the court in the second state is obliged to fully recognize and honor the judgment of the first court in determining the enforceability of the judgment and the procedure for its execution. The Full Faith and Credit Clause has also been invoked to recognize the validity of a marriage. Traditionally, every state honored a marriage legally contracted in any other state. However, in 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that Hawaiis statute restricting legal marriage to parties of the opposite sex establishes a sex-based classification, which is subject to Strict Scrutiny if challenged on Equal Protection grounds (Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530). Although the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it raised the possibility that a successful equal protection challenge to the states marriage laws could eventually lead to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages. In response to the Baehr case, Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (110 Stat. § 2419), which defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman for federal purposes and expressly grants states the right to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
Answer: Hi Kayla... Seems pretty clear to me. When any State has had a 'matter' which has successfully gone through (completely) its Court System. It is considered a decided 'matter' in All States. No other State can 're litigate' the matter. The only route remaining is to take the 'question' to the Supreme Court (they can chose to hear the matter or not)
Category: Government

Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights

J. Jeffrey Heck, a lawyer in Mansfield, Ohio, usually sits on managements side of the table. The only employee cases I take are those that poke my buttons, he said. And this one really did. His client was a middle-aged novice training to become a nun in a Roman Catholic religious order in Toledo. She said she had been dismissed by the - Second article in series, In Gods Name, examining how American religious organizations benefit from increasingly accommodating government, focuses on limited rights of religious employees; finds that legislators, regulators and judges have carved out or preserved safe havens that shield religious employers of all faiths from most employer lawsuits, from laws protecting pensions and providing unemployment benefits, and from laws that give employees right to form unions to negotiate with their employers; finds that over course of last 15 years, religious organizations--especially religious schools--are increasingly able to manage their affairs with less interference from government and their own employees; finds most sweeping judicial protection is called ministerial exception, sometimes called church autonomy doctrine, which judges have applied to religious employment disputes for more than 100 years; finds judges almost never agree to hear controversy that would require them to delve into doctrines, governance, discipline or hiring preferences of any religious faith, citing protections of First Amendment; numerous examples cited; photos (L) - By DIANA B. HENRIQUES; Andrew Lehren conducted computer analysis for this series, and Donna Anderson provided online research assistance.

Are these lawmakers breaking their oaths to the Constitution?

People who hold a public office swear to uphold the laws of the Constitution of the U.S. When Republicans built a stone monument to the 10 Commandments and placed it in a courthouse, claiming it was "historic", they were knowingly breaking standing Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. They did this in hopes that a new court would overturn the old decisions. When the decision wasnt overturned, they took the monument on tour around the nation to show how liberal activist judges (or the conservatives they themselves had appointed) were attacking good Christian values. Also, many states are already working on projects to ban abortion, knowingly and openly admitting to breaking the Courts interpretation of the Constitution in hopes of a new decision. Is breaking the Courts interpretation deliberately in hopes of an opportunity to change the decision breaking their oath to uphold the Constitution? Would it be if liberals allowed gay marriage against a courts decision? does making laws you know are against the current interpretation of the constitution count as petitioning for the redress of grievances? isnt there another way, simply filing a suit against the government (is that not the proper method to petition against the government?)
Answer: In the South Dakota abortion case, maybe. The Supreme Court precedent was clearly established, and they knew the law was invalid under the current interpretation. However, they were splitting the fine line that while the Court said they couldn't do it, the Constitution was silent on the subject. So, they weren't technically violating the Constitution, just the current interpretation of it. And because of the 1st Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" (the one most people forget), they were using the only means available by creating a controversy that would lead to a case enabling them to challenge the current interpretation. Shady, but arguably valid. {INSERT} Because of the Case-or-Controversy requirement of Article III, a suit can only be filed where there is standing, an injury in fact traceable to government action. You can't just challenge a law or court holding as wrong, unless you have been personally harmed by it. This ban was how the SD legislature created a situation was someone could be personally harmed, and would have to assert the prior Supreme Court ruling as support for their requested relief from the SD law. That creates the standing necessary to get the case into the federal courts. Absent that specific personal injury, there is no way to challenge the prior Court holding. So, while it may not be exactly what the Founders had in mind, it is a valid use of procedural due process to get the issue heard. In the 10 Commandments case, probably not. The other clauses of the 1st Amendment guarantee people's rights to march around the country saying they don't like the decisions that are being made. And at the time the first monument was placed, the precedent wasn't that clear. It's still not very clear, except at the edges of the spectrum. So, again, no betrayal of their oath, because they could argue that what they were doing was a good faith action within the lines as established so far. Finally, as to same-sex marriage, no. The Supreme Court has never that the Constitution forbids it. So, any action promoting such unions can't be in violation of either Supreme Court precedent or the Constitution. Betrayal of an oath must be willful. Someone must know they have a duty, and know that their actions are in deliberate violation of that duty. While some of our elected officials are almost certainly guilty of such actions, the situations mentioned above are not. Bad taste maybe. But not betrayal of their oath. {EDIT to Mel T} Actually, courts do make law. It's called common law, as opposed to statutory law, and it accounts for about 75% or more of all the law that exists. That's the way the system has been set up since this country was founded, and long before that.
Category: Law & Ethics

No action on same-sex marriage : SCOTUSblog

2 days ago ... The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage pleas now on the docket. ... If the Court has chosen to deny review of all of the cases, even that might not ... of the denials, and it would take some time to prepare dissenting opinions.

Supreme Court Takes No Action On Gay Marriage Cases - On Top ...

The Supreme Court on Friday took no action on cases involving marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The court was expected to consider cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Proposition 8, California's ...

Supreme Court takes no action on gay marriage | Nation & World ...

2 days ago ... Supreme Court takes no action on gay marriage. The justices met behind closed doors Friday to debate cases involving the Defense of ...

Supreme Court Takes Up Question of Gene Research

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would decide whether human genes may be patented. The justices considered but took no action on requests that the court hear one or more cases concerning same-sex marriage . The case the court added to its docket concerns patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that - By ADAM LIPTAK

Supreme Court takes no action yet on same-sex marriage appeals ...

2 days ago ... WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court took no action Friday on a ... has merely delayed consideration of the same-sex marriage cases, ...

Why is the media ignoring all the homophobic legislation in Florida?

Because of increased power amongst homophobic right-wing organizations, the following things have happened recently in Florida: 1) Gay Marriage is Forever Banned in the state constitution. 2) Civil Unions are Forever Banned in the state constitution. 3) Teaching Creationism instead of Science is now legally protected. 4) Gay parenting and adoption is now illegal. (Gays have even had their own children taken from them.) 5) There are 9 Republicans in the state Senate and only 4 Democrats (even though the population is 50/50 and the state voted for Obama and Hillary in twice the numbers than voted for McCain). But all we hear about in the media is Carrie Prejean (Miss California) and what kind of shoes Mrs. Obama was wearing...
Answer: I work for a Non-Profit Org in Florida, I'll address each of your points as best I can: 1) Gay Marriage is Forever Banned in the state constitution. This is on the surface true. However, should it be found by a higher court to be an unconstitutional action, that can and will be changed. Additionally, if gay marriage is legalized nationally, that will supersede the state law. Thus if O'Bama repeals the DoMA and laws are passed nationally that allow same sex marriage, Florida will be required to recognize them. 2) Civil Unions are Forever Banned in the state constitution. Yes and no. a Marriage Like Commitment does not receive nearly any of the same rights that a marriage does in Florida, but there are ways around that. While I can not put my partner on my insurance or as my next of kin at the hospital, I can have hir legally declared my medical power of attorney. This carries with it, the right to be permitted in my hospital room with my legal next of kin, and the power to overrule my next of kin of decisions about my health. It's not perfect, but it's a start. 3) Teaching Creationism instead of Science is now legally protected. In Private schools. Public schools are still required by federal law to teach non religious curricula. Additionally, public school is still denied the ability to teach religious curricula. Lastly, a private school that receives federal funding is bound by the separation of church and state as much as any public school. It is only the private schools who receive no federal monies that are allowed to teach the curricula of their choice. 4) Gay parenting and adoption is now illegal. (Gays have even had their own children taken from them.) Straights have had their children taken away as well. Current Florida law, to the best of my knowledge, does not criminalize parenting by homosexuals. Should you find yourself in this case you will likely have a TITLE VII (civil rights) suit that should be easy to win. The argument that you should have your attorney present is that you are being targeting because you do not conform to societies standardized role for your physical gender. The US Supreme Court recently awarded a large sum of money to a transsexual plaintiff in a suit against the Library of Congress. While it isn't a direct precedent for this example, it does show the trend is changing. 5) There are 9 Republicans in the state Senate and only 4 Democrats (even though the population is 50/50 and the state voted for Obama and Hillary in twice the numbers than voted for McCain). As previously stated, just because one is in a republican or democratic district, or registered such, does not require that one vote that way. I, for example am a republican. I did not vote for McCain, I also vote in favor of the LGBT community without being LGBT myself. EDIT~ I wanted to clarify...I am unaware of any legislation that removes a homosexuals right as a parent or to raise their child. If such exists, could you please post a link to it? EDIT #2~ The Florida supreme court just ruled to acknowledge second partner adoptions from other states. What this means is that if a Gay person has a child from a previous relationship and their (new) partner adopts them in a different state, Florida recognizes the validity of the adoption regardless of sexual orientation. This opens up a different loophole in the Amendment 2 legislation (the banning of gay marriage). If one party adopts the child of the other party, they are now related. Being legally related (in theory) allows them to place both of their new family members on their insurance.
Category: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered

Is there any CONSTITUTIONAL Agreement against Same sex Marriage?

Ive heard all the RELIGIOUS arguments but have yet to heard one CONSTITUTIONAL argument against same sex marriage. Isnt The US Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Under our constitution we are legally required to provide same sex marriage under the ruling against Separate but Equal. In fact if you think about it, the only time we deny rights is when dealing with criminals who break the law, and even in that case a Murderer, rapist, child molester, terrorist, etc have more rights than a law abiding tax paying gay/lesbian couple... How so? A rapist , murderer, child molester, etc can still get married while a gay couple cannot. So unless you outlaw gay behavior, arent we CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED to provide equal rights? Is there a Constitutional argument against Same sex marriage? (Im not talking Religious. Strictly talking about the Supreme law of the Land-- the US Constitution.) The Question is supposed to be "Is there any CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT against Same sex Marriage?" Sorry for any confusion. I dont get why its even a STATE LEVEL issue. It should be a FEDERAL LEVEL issue becuase states cant individually deny civil rights according to multiple Supreme Court Rulings. Example: A state cant vote to deny Interracial marriage just becuase they vote that way becuase its protected at a Federal level.
Answer: Right now it is a state issue. If a Constitutional argument was desirable to either side (either 'for' or 'against' gay marriage) then a constitutional amendment would be needed most likely. Another possibility would be for the Supreme Court to find a Roe v. Wade-style 'right to privacy' that they construed as granting gay couples the right to marry and barring states from preventing gay marriages. A Due Process/Equal Protection argument under the 14th amendment could also be put forward, though currently sexual orientation jurisprudence is limited in that area. Edit: Those opposed to gay marriage could argue that the 10th amendment bars the federal government (that is, Congress) from legislating on the issue (federalism), which also reinforces the need for a full-blown constitutional amendment if any change is to made in this area. Please note that I am not taking a side for or against gay marriage but am simply answering your question. Edit 2 (response to your additional question): The Supreme Court provides 5th and 14th amendment protections (see above) to certain specific categories of state action. In other words, the states have a right to legislate generally, unless that legislation would violate specific protections found in the Constitution or in cases construing the Constitution. Race (which you mentioned) is a category that gets the highest level of scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") from the Court when states pass legislation on it. Other categories get less protection by the Court (for example, gender legislation gets "Intermediate Scrutiny"). The lowest level is "Rational Basis" scrutiny which means that most legislation simply has to have a rational basis to pass judicial scrutiny. I am guessing that marriage and sexual orientation legislation currently falls into this lowest level of protection. This is not to say a future Court ruling could not provide Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny levels of protection going forward. It's just that right now it does not. Sorry for the long-winded answer.
Category: Marriage & Divorce

I need some help to save my marriage..... Please?

My wife and I have different stances on various topics. One of those topics has gone from a simple debate, to what feels like a blatant insult. Same sex marriage. I believe, based on Christian principles, that marriage is an institution, appointed by god, between a man and a woman. My wife, believes that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. Our society has passed tolerance and become acceptant of gay relationships. And to each their own. This is not a debate on homosexuality. This is a debate of marriage. When we took our vows, my wife has already admitted that she did not agree to the vows, or to my role as the husband and caregiver. She does not believe in god. She believes that people who do not believe in god, and homosexuals have the right to be married. I believe that makes the very ideals of marriage perverse. I am contemplating filing for a divorce, for the simple fact that she is making a mockery of something I honor. Please advise, good and bad. Thanks Adultery isnt the only cause for divorce. And frankly, to make a vow you have no intention of backing up, would seem to me the entire marriage was based on a lie. Hypocritical? VERY. Cant argue that. And just to clarify, it was after we were married, she changed her belief to "agnostic" then to "athiest". I appreciate the feedback, both positive and negative. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. Sometimes you just need a 3rd party opinion to see things more clearly Great Feedback, both positive and negative. Thanks everyone.
Answer: There are of course two levels of marriage in essence, maybe three, 1st you might have religious or sacramental marriage, that which the couples ask for a priest or pasture to ordain in some way; 2nd you have legal marraiges, of which the religious marriages usually are, but in these cases a legal marriage would be a non -religious wedding, and then you have this 3rd category which is more marriage by actions, either self proclaimed or simply by living together in some states (common law or spirirtual is somtimes a word used). ----------------------- I asked my priest how he would handle gay couples in church years ago when the mayor of san francisco allowed gay marriage. He said that he would handle it as he handles divorced couples who remarry. Meaning that if a couple marrys in the church unless they get a church annulment they are still married by the same principles of the church faith, and therefore in remarriage they are committing adultery. In any case, whether there is a gay couple, or a couple which have a divorced partner, both live in a type of sin. Afterall, we are all sinners. So I think that the issue you are arguing over is not something to break up the marriage. Think of marriage as legal means by which our laws provide protectios and assurances to couples who choose to live togther. When President Bush spoke about constitutionally outlawing marriage years ago, it sparked the mayor of San Francisco, a conservative married republican, to risk his career to marry couples which led to the recent CA supreme court decision. The mayor said something to the extent that the President seeked to disenfranchise, to isolate, and to remove any legal protection from a specific group in our society. Such actions historically have led to hate, and persecution, so I think that for the sake of tolerance you shoudl be willing to shake your neighborhs hand at church whether they are divorced or gay, whether they remarried after divorce or or married to a person of the same sex. These laws that give divorce and gay marriage serve an important part of our "Roman" society because they are a means by which Caesar governs us. We need these laws to ensure that we have social order, and I do believe that of the two, only adultery (divorcing and then having sex) is on the 10 commandts, not gay marriage. Of course marriage is an element of all societies. Now, let's be truly honest, this question is BS, and you really shouldn't waste our time to put yourself on some silly alter. I think you need to stop complaining that some jerk you don't like is against gay marriage. You're not gonna convince anyone anything here they don't already believe and I really this that you're mocking religion in a hypocritical way because you seem to want people to accept you but you don't want to accept others beliefs. Get off your pedestal buddy, and enjoy your life.
Category: Marriage & Divorce

Supreme Court Takes No Action on Prop. 8, Gay Marriage Cases ...

The nation's high court could make an announcement on the issue Monday.

Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases http://t.co/HiJNjTTO
From: TodayFeed - Source: dlvr.it

RT @Reuters: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases
From: VernalAttorney - Source: Twitter for iPhone

RT @Reuters: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases
From: tayl0500 - Source: web

RT @Gay: Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases - http://t.co/Z3fzNtgM #samesexmarriage
From: itsjustmewbu - Source: Twitter for iPhone

Reuters- Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on M... http://t.co/rW4QO9dn
From: BreakingNewz - Source: twitterfeed

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases
From: iPavi - Source: twitterfeed

RT @dkthomp: RT @Reuters: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases
From: Princip_al - Source: HootSuite

RT @ReutersUS: Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases http://t.co/7WPb9KW9
From: cp24co - Source: Twitter for iPhone

RT @Reuters: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases
From: MikeLawlor - Source: Twitter for iPhone

RT @Reuters: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases
From: delapresilla - Source: Twitter for Android

Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases... http://t.co/3DMAlNOJ #politicsNews
From: the_boldprint - Source: theboldprint

RT @Reuters: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases
From: janashortal - Source: web

US Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases - http://t.co/6zuNgGRE #samesexmarriage
From: Gay - Source: GayNetwork Feed

Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases - http://t.co/Z3fzNtgM #samesexmarriage
From: Gay - Source: GayNetwork Feed

RT @Reuters: BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court takes no action on same-sex marriage cases
From: JennyWarmbrodt - Source: Twitter for iPhone