Hillary Flashback: 'No,' New York Should Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

As a senator from New York, Hillary Clinton was staunchly opposed to recognizing same-sex marriage. She expressed that sentiment clearly in this 2002 interview with TV host Chris Matthews (starting at 2:05 mark):

"Let me ask you this about some domestic issues in New York State. This state is always the sort of the social beginnings of so much in this country," liberal host Matthews started. "People come here, a lot of immigrants. The New York Times recently began posting the celebrations of gay unions. Not just straight people getting married, but gay people who want to announce their unions. Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?"

Clinton delivered a one-word response: "No."

The crowd booed in response.

Clinton flip-flopped on same-sex marriage in 2013 when she released a recorded video saying she now supported the policy switch.

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading....

Clarence Thomas: ‘Decision Threatens the Religious Liberty Our Nation Has Long Sought to Protect’

(CNSNews.com) - In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage is a right, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the court’s “decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “the free exercise” of religion—which is not confined to “worship” that takes place within a religious building, but engages all aspects of a person’s life.

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect,” Thomas said in his dissent.

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” said Thomas. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

“The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability,” Thomas concluded.

Here is a key excerpt from Thomas’s dissent:

Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.

The history of religious liberty in our country is familiar: Many of the earliest immigrants to America came seeking freedom to practice their religion without restraint. See McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1422–1425 (1990). When they arrived, they created their own havens for religious practice. Ibid. Many of these havens were initially homogenous communities with established religions. Ibid. By the 1780’s, however, “America was in the wake of a great religious revival” marked by a move toward free exercise of religion. Id., at 1437. Every State save Connecticut adopted protections for religious freedom in their State Constitutions by 1789, id., at 1455, and, of course, the First Amendment enshrined protection for the free exercise of religion in the U. S. Constitution.

But that protection was far from the last word on religious liberty in this country, as the Federal Government and the States have reaffirmed their commitment to religious liberty by codifying protections for religious practice. See, e.g., Reli­gious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq.; Conn. Gen. Stat. §52–571b (2015).

Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so ful­filling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religiouspractice.7

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious prac­tices, the People have long elected to afford broader pro­tections than this Court’s constitutional precedents man­date. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional defi­nition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with poten­tially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading.... 

[BREAKING Supreme Court delivers win for gay marriage backers, forcing states to authorize same-sex unions all across the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that gay marriage is the law of the land. 

The landmark ruling, delivered just in time for Pride weekend festivities in San Francisco and New York City, says that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees gays and lesbians must have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. 

The justices also ruled in the issue that has bitterly divided the nation that states without gay-marriage laws on the books must recognize gay marriages performed in other states. 

The decision came on what will be remembered as a seminal date in gay rights history. June 26 was also the calendar date that saw the high court rule on Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and United States v. Windsor two years ago.

All three majoroity decisions were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

+2

LET THE STREET PARTIES BEGIN: Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states

+2

OUT AND ABOUT: Supporters of gay marriage ralled Thursday in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., expecting a ruling that came 24 hours later

Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democratic senator and a supporter of broad rights for gays in America, celebrated the ruling minutes after it was read in open court.

'By recognizing the constitutional right of all people to marry the person they love, the Supreme Court has guaranteed that, across the country, same-sex couples will have their relationships treated with the full legal dignity and respect that they deserve,' Kaine said in a statement.

Not everyone in Washington shared his sentiment. Four of the Supreme Court's justices dissented, including Chief Justice John Roberts – and each one of them wrote a separate opinion outlining why.

'If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision,' Roberts wrote.

'Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.'

Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative rock on the court since 1986, wrote his own stinging rejoinder and called the decision a 'threat to American democracy.' 

'Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall,' he wrote. 'With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them – with each decision that is unabashedly not based on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this Court – we move one step closer.' 

But the five robed justices who banded together to expand the Constitution's protections of gays and lesbians worded their ruling just as strongly.

'No union is more profound than marriage,' thy wrote, 'for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. ... [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.'

Via: Daily Mail

Continue Reading....

Tensions build as Supreme Court readies blockbuster rulings

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tensions are building inside and outside the white marble facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building as the nine justices prepare to issue major rulings on gay marriage and President Barack Obama's healthcare law by the end of the month.

Of the 11 cases left to decide, the biggest are a challenge by gay couples to state laws banning same-sex marriage and a conservative challenge to subsidies provided under the Obamacare law to help low- and middle-income people buy health insurance that could lead to millions of people losing medical coverage.

Many legal experts predict the court will legalize gay marriage nationwide by finding that the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal treatment under the law and due process prohibit states from banning same-sex nuptials.

The four liberal justices are expected to support same-sex marriage, and conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, the expected swing vote, has a history of backing gay rights.

In three key decisions since 1996, Kennedy has broadened the court's view of equality for gays. The most recent was a 2013 case in which the court struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples.

During oral arguments in the gay marriage case on April 28, Kennedy posed tough questions to lawyers from both sides but stressed the nobility and dignity of same-sex couples.

The healthcare decision is tougher to call. Chief Justice John Roberts, the swing vote when the court upheld Obamacare in 2012, said little during the March 4 oral argument to indicate how he will vote.

The court will issue some rulings on Monday, with more likely later in the week.

For the justices, the pressure is on to have the rulings ready. That can be difficult as the cases in which they are closely divided are generally the ones left until the end.

Outside the court, those with a stake in the outcome of the rulings are left anxiously waiting.

James Obergefell, one of the plaintiffs in the gay marriage case, said he will be at the court for all the remaining decision days.

Obergefell sued Ohio, challenging its ban on same-sex marriages, after the state refused to acknowledge his marriage to John Arthur on Arthur's death certificate. They were married in Maryland, a state that allows gay marriages, just months before Arthur died in 2013.

Via: Yahoo News

Continue Reading....

SCOTUS Okaying Gay Marriage Is Not Bad Law, It's Not Law at All

Within the month, the nation will receive the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court as to whether the U.S. Constitution requires all of the states to jettison their domestic laws and sanction same-sex marriage.  Numerous federal judges have so ruled, and most states have simply yielded to those federal court decisions.  In a few cases, beginning with Vermont and Massachusetts, state courts ruled for same-sex marriage, and state officials have accepted passively those decisions as well. 

Generally, courts have ruled for same-sex marriage using either the “due process clause” or the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment, or both.  That raises a simple question:  is it really possible that when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 the framers intended that it sanction same-sex marriage?  Of course not.  The U.S. Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage.  Then, how could the Constitution be manipulated to support a decision in favor of same-sex marriage?  Well it has not been easy.  The Constitutional case for same-sex marriage is pathetically weak — unless you adopt the notion of an “evolving” Constitution — which is, of course, the polar opposite of the notion of our “written” Constitution. 

There are actually four cases, all from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which have been consolidated for decision in the U.S. Supreme Court — Obergefell, DeBoer, Tanco, and Bourke.  If you would like to know more about how this case developed, a great deal of information, and links to all documents, is available on SCOTUSblog.  The amicus curiae brief which we filed in the Sixth Circuit in support of traditional marriage is available, as is the amicus curiae brief which we filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Judge Roy Moore: Impeach Ginsburg for Marrying Two Men Ahead of SCOTUS Ruling on Gay Marriage

(CNSNews.com) – On May 17, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated the marriage of two men and used the occasion to cite her constitutional right to do so. In June, the high court – including Ginsburg’s vote - will announce its decision on whether homosexual marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution.

That’s grounds for impeachment, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore told CNSNews.com in an exclusive interview.

“She’s basically thumbing her nose in front of the other justices that she’s going to say what she wants to say and do what she wants to do, and she’s going to ignore the rules of ethics,” Moore said, adding that judges are bound by those rules.

“I think there’s grounds for the legislature of the United States and Congress to act,” Moore said. “They could act to impeach her; they could remove her for bad behavior, because judges serve for good behavior under Article 3 (of the Constitution).

Moore said the fact that Ginsburg made a public statement that she had a right under the Constitution to perform a same-sex wedding, under the ethics rules, is bad behavior given her role in deciding the Obergefell v. Hodges case.

“They could find that’s bad behavior and subject to impeachment and removal,” Moore said.

“Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York,” Dowd wrote.

“The gilded setting was elegant: Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, the headquarters in Washington of the Society of the Cincinnati, a club for the descendants of the French and American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War,” Dowd wrote. “During the ceremony, the couple slipped black and gold Harry Winston rings onto each other’s fingers.

“But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony," Dowd wrote. “With a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution,’ Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.

“No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional,” Dowd wrote.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Obama Froze Biden Out After Gay-Marriage Gaffe

AND THE DOWNSIDE TO THIS IS ??????

Vice President Joe Biden's role in the administration was virtually frozen after he angered President Barack Obama in 2012 by announcing his support of gay marriage while the president was still on record opposing it.

In a profile of the 71-year-old in Politico Magazine, the presumed 2016 presidential hopeful talked about how he had been given "every s*** job in the world" from the start of the Obama presidency, but detailed how relations with the president came to a virtual standstill after the gaffe-prone politician pre-empted Obama's announcement that he had "evolved" on the issue.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll 

"When the president asked me what portfolio did I want, I said, 'Base it on what you want of me to help you govern,'" Biden said he told Obama.

"'But I want to be the last guy in the room on every major decision … You're the president, I'm not, but if it's my experience you're lookin' for, I want to be the last guy to make the case."

But everything changed in 2012, after Biden announced his approval of gay marriage before the president took a public stand, the Politico report says.

Biden's announcement forced Obama to make his own public statement about gay marriage earlier than he would have liked.

Despite attempts to apologize to Obama that he did not intend to upstage the president on the issue, the president's inner circle suspected otherwise and became increasingly hostile toward him.

Biden started to be excluded from strategic planning meetings, while his schedule of public events was curtailed and in some cases canceled. Aides went so far as to interfere with Biden's staffing decisions, blocking two of his selections for chief of staff, according to the magazine.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Biden's top possible rival for the presidential race, appeared to step into the breach. Clinton, for example, appeared alongside Obama during the president's first television interview of his second term. The Biden team was also disgruntled that the White House didn't strongly refute the rumors that Clinton would be selected to replace Biden. 

Via: Newsmax
Continue Reading....

These are the Next Gay Marriage Battlegrounds

A wave of lawsuits have been filed in courts around the nation since the Supreme Court in June overturned much of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The rulings effectively opened the floodgates to what has been a gradual push for marriage equality.

“The more people are winning, the more people are stepping up and wanting to become involved and move forward after,” says Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry. “The more we make it real — the more places gay people share in the freedom to marry — the more people see with their own eyes families helped and no one hurt.” 

On Aug. 1, Minnesota and Rhode Island became the 12th and 13th states to allow gay marriage. New Jersey followed suit on Oct. 21, after a judge overturned the state’s ban and Gov. Chris Christie dropped his appeal of the ruling. Illinois became the 15th state (plus Washington D.C.) to approve gay marriage when lawmakers passed a bill on Nov. 5. Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to sign it into law Nov. 20.

(INTERACTIVE: A Timeline of the Gay Rights Movement)

So who’s next? Here’s TIME’s guide to the states most likely to legalize gay marriage in the months ahead.

Via: Time

Continue Reading.....

Christie Drops Opposition to Gay Marriage, Becomes Legal in Jersey

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Monday withdrew legal opposition to gay marriage, making same-sex nuptials the law in the state.
The move makes New Jersey the 14th state in the nation to legalize gay marriage.

On Friday, the state Supreme Court refused to delay a lower-court order for the state to begin recognizing same-sex marriages. On Monday morning, Christie said in a statement that he ordered an appeal dropped.

"Chief Justice Rabner left no ambiguity about the unanimous court's view on the ultimate decision in this matter when he wrote, 'same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today," Christie said.

Urgent: Should the House Have Agreed to Debt Deal? Vote Here 

"Although the governor strongly disagrees with the Court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the Court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law.

"The governor will do his constitutional duty and ensure his Administration enforces the law as dictated by the New Jersey Supreme Court."

One second after midnight in Lambertville, a city of just under 4,000 people on the Delaware River, Beth Asaro and Joanne Schailey said "I do" in what they believed was the state's first such ceremony. Their union before Mayor David DelVecchio was held in a municipal meeting hall.

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Report: Biden Pressured Bloomberg To Endorse Obama, “Mike, There’s Too Much At Stake. We Really Need You To Do This”…

AP Photo

POLITICO's Mike Allen reports that it was Vice President Biden who nudged New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg into endorsing President Obama.

From Playbook:

Biden’s gift for reading people played a role in the endorsement. He and Bloomberg have been friendly for years, and have played golf together. The V.P. had called the mayor over the weekend, and the had talked several times this week about Sandy. Then yesterday morning, Biden was in Davenport, Iowa, about to go to church for All Saints’ Day. Finally, he made the ask, nudging Bloomberg toward the endorsement: “Mike, there’s too much at stake. We really need you to do this.” And the mayor did.

Bloomberg went on to endorse Obama in an op-ed at the news outlet that bears his name — citing Obama's positions on climate change, abortion, and gay marriage.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading...