House Republicans have signaled they plan to ask the Supreme Court by month's end to get involved in a constitutional fight over same-sex marriage.
In a federal court filing Wednesday in Connecticut, the House of Representatives' Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group asked a judge to put on hold consideration of a pending lawsuit in that state over the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The 1996 congressional law defines marriage for federal purposes as exclusively between a man and a woman.
... Lawyers for House Republicans, who have now picked up defense of DOMA, said pending court challenges in other jurisdictions should now be put on hold until the justices ultimately decide whether to take up the separate case from Massachusetts.
The first step would be for congressional leaders to formally ask the justices to intervene, by filing a so-called "petition for certiorari."
In their motion this week in the current Connecticut dispute, GOP leaders said they would do that "by the end of the month," predicting it would be a "good candidate for Supreme Court review."
18 Comments
The House GOP cannot sue. The Supreme Court decided in Raines v. Byrd that sitting members of Congress do not have standing to sue.
Ummm, Dovie, quick question.
Does the word "sue" appear in the above excerpt?
No?
OK then.
Rick,
Fair enough. I understood that. I am merely saying that they may only encourage the Supreme Court to grant certiorari — which they are indeed are doing — but they may not actually be a side in the case.
Prop 8 proponent and witness and director of the Institute for American Values David Blankenhorn, today, in a NYT editorial writes "the time has come for me , to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do," and explains why:
“For me, the most important is the equal dignity of homosexual love. I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.”
David Blankenhorn does not have a seat on the Supreme Court or in the House of Representatives. He does not have a law degree. Like every other citizen, he has just one vote at the ballot box. His views are his own and have not influenced mine. I have never quoted him. Judge Walker wasn't influenced by his testimony either. But Judge Walker didn't understand the concept of legislative facts. The House of Representatives does.
The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue in Baker v. Nelson. See also Murphy v. Ramsey. In view of the current lawfare campaign against DOMA, it is appropriate that the SCOTUS address the issue once again.
Oh poster #1. They are not sueing but have every right to ask that the Supreme Court takes up this issue.
Time, history and human rights prevail. The GOPs have now given up throwing out gay men and women serving our country in uniform. Will DOM will be next?
The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has said that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is a settled issue and he wouldn’t try to reverse it even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency and the GOP captures the Senate. “We fought that fight,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), adding that his focus was on getting “the things that our war-fighters need.
Such as freedom of conscience for chaplains.......
@Rick Delano
When parents or partners are burying what's left of their gay loved ones who were blown up in battle who had to serve and suffer in silence, the last thing they, and this grateful nation are concerned about is the "freedom of conscience" for chaplains who sit comfortably protected far from the front lines.
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), quoted in Davis v. Beason,
133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) and United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S.
393 at 401 (1908)
Which words do we utilize to express a point?
Sometimes, in retrospect, we find we could have said it in better terms.
A comment on this thread quotes David Blankenhorn:
'that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over.'
Some will point to this statement as showing the growing number of supporters of same-sex civil marriage, but it is a single case. What about those numbers who convert to opposing it? It does get tiresome for people who have given their private time to protecting constitutional rights defining civil marriage as between man and woman. It is rough to debate people who only care about themselves, and not about society (which, in-turn affects them).
But do we have to grant marriage licenses to those relationships, out of respect for their 'relationships'? NO.
Those relationships are good friendships and all friendships in some way contribute to society, but not as the critical way opposite-sex couples, as a social class, who enter marriage regulated by the State contribute to society.
Unmarried parents, analogously do NOT contribute to society in the same way as opposite-sex couples entering civil marriage, yet they also indirectly produce a drag or extra financial burden on society. California's budget is mostly for social services associated with broken-down families and the social consequences of thinking we can never have too much liberty. I think Liberalism is actually a negative word. No better example than California, 'the land of promise and opportunity' is no more.
In the 1990's, in Hawaii, a same-sex couple stubbornly asked and then sued for a marriage license (they first request, and then sue. If the nice way doesn't work, try a bludgeon!). This led nationally to DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), and in Hawaii to the marriage State constitutional amendment, which the current Governor decided unilaterally now not to defend. What a mess! It is fashionable - elected officials who do not have to follow the law - they tempt the system.
More same-sex couples have sued in other States and have led to each State figuring how to deal with it per their particular State constitution, with up to 32 amending their constitution to express the meaning previously intended regarding marriage no one thought could be slanted to refer to same-sex couple's friendship. It never even entered their mind, so they were sloppy in writing their laws and constitutions. Would civil marriage someday be construed as to include civil marriage to animals to get benefits? What would be the public purpose? Isn't civi marriage a Right of each individual? Nope. That's not the meaning of the word marriage. It's an association between man and woman, or nothing at all.
It's about the meaning of words, indeed. One Representative in Arizona was shot down by a crazy man who asked her "Do words have meaning?" How do crazies interpret words? Do we confuse them more?
It just takes a long time to amend a State's constitution. But in New York State (and i don't mean NY City, which clearly dominates the State) their State constitution does not allow for voter initiatives triggered by civillians (as opposed to politicians). Therefore, the struggle began already there as people see they are by definition discriminated against left without voter initiative privileges.
That, not 'marriage', is true INEQUALITY. People should be able to initiate a voter initiative in NY. See how the topic of civil marriage has pointed to true inequality? That's because marriage is a matter everyone can understand. It involves people politically once again. That is dangerous for the 'liberals'.
But in other States where politicians cannot have full control, the trend is to remain steadfast against same-sex civil marriage. The results are such that now majorities are starting to oppose same-sex civil unions, now amply documented as a slippery slope towards same-sex civil marriage in California's appeal courts.
Yes, words matter because our system of laws is written down (often in a sloppy way). The Native Americans (indians) couldn't figure out how putting an "X" on a piece of paper gave up their territory to the 'white' man.
Obviously, it is easy to falsify a document - easier today as our Gov. Abercrumby was seen at Kinko's copy store working on something arduously when nObama finally asked for his long-form birth certificate.
The Native American leaders were correct. If a person does not have integrity to begin with, a paper document is just going to make matters worse. They had ways of dealing with members of their tribe who lied and put the rest of the tribe at risk, or wasted precious time. They had no paperwork, no words in writing. Now we have video, recorders, writing, computers to process issues and to track down the liars. But a liar can also re-interpret words, causing an amazing slowdown in a society which depends on written law and its interpretation.
I think the matter deserves a long comment.
John McLaren: There are many other rules in the military which all military must 'suffer in silence'. The rules are made to optimize military campaigns, and discipline is a requirement for that. Everyone is allowed to have strong friendships in the military, and other forms of sexual conduct are forbidden for that purpose. Soldiers break the rules at their own risk. Favoring a few might put the majority at risk on the battle field. It is not about sexual orientation, a concept which cannot be scientifically ascertained in a military context. It is about sexual acts of all kinds which affect military efficiency and impact on the enemy. If women can serve, so can people of homosexual persuasion, but sexuality is controlled and monitored in the military because it can lead to all sorts of problems. Single gender outfits operate much more efficiently than those which are mixed gender. Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be reinstated because what is there to 'tell' would create a mixed gender outfit of sorts, and we are back to inefficiency. Instead, create an all-women battalion, and an all-'gay furious' battalion, just like they created 'all Black' troops in the civil war. It is much more efficient that way.
The controlling case is INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
Rick DeLano, John Noe:
I am in your corner 100%. I, too, hopes the Supreme Court takes the case and finds DOMA constitutional.
Michael Ejercito:
Where does INS v. Chadha come in?
John McClaren:
Your honest rejection of freedom is appreciated.
It will be such a pleasure to crush your fascist movement this fall.
Where does INS v. Chadha come in?
The Supreme Court permitted intervention. See Chadha, 462 U.S. at 930n.5. See also id. at 930n.6 ("controversy clearly exists in No. 80-1832, as in the other two cases, because of the presence of the two Houses of Congress as adverse parties")
Thank you Dovie, glad you are aboard and I checked out and liked your blog.
John Noe:
I haven't really put anything on it
Michael Ejercito:
Raines is more recent than Chadha.