OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A nonbinding resolution to reaffirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman and support the federal Defense of Marriage Act has been approved in the Oklahoma Senate.

The resolution sponsored by Norman Republican Sen. Rob Standridge was quickly adopted Tuesday on a voice vote. The House passed the resolution unanimously last week....

[The bill's] authors say it is meant to send a message to President Barack Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently heard arguments in two cases related to same-sex marriage rights.

On the question of marriage and the Supreme Court he said:

"The truth is the truth. The truth is marriage is based upon the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Marriage is the one institution that brings together the great halves of humanity male and female in one institution to connect husbands and wives together and to any children they may bear. The question before the court is not only on this issue of what is marriage, marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman and apart from all this inevitability talk, 31 states have voted to say that is the truth, they've embedded it in their state constitutions, only 4 have voted against it. There's a myth that somehow this is inevitable, look, North Carolina passed its constitutional amendment 8 months ago by 61%. The polls in California had us at 36% support for traditional marriage but when people came out they voted to support traditional marriage so the real issue is, is the court going to launch another culture war by trumping the votes of these states and of the duly-elected members of Congress who passed DOMA."

On the question of whether the Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8:

"I don't think the court is going to punt, the court is going to answer the question, the question is simple: 'do the people of the state of California, do the people of the states of this country have the right to votes and voices heard, or is the court going to trash over 50 million votes.' The lower court ruling wasn't just about Proposition 8 and what is being brought forward is this myth that somehow embedded in our Constitution something the founders didn't see and we haven't seen up until now 'there is a right to redefine the very nature of marriage'."

On whether gays and lesbians are "politically powerless" he said:

"I think what John Roberts was asking was a really fascinating question because currently gay marriage activists are claiming that they are politically powerless and that's why we have to strike down laws defending marriage like the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8. Whereas what the Chief Justice is saying is that actually gays and lesbians are very politically powerful -- the President supports them, the Democratic party platform supports them -- and so the idea that we need to strike down laws protecting marriage is absurd. What we need to uphold is that people have the ultimate right to decide marriage laws. The states, the democratic process is working, and we hope the Supreme Court will acknowledge the votes of over 45 million Americans who have voted to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

On the question of whether Americans who are pro-marriage are akin to those who opposed interracial marriage he said:

"Laws against interracial marriage were meant to keep the races separate so they wouldn't have children together and they were wrong, marriage is meant to bring men and women together so they have children which is right. You cannot compare these two things at all and furthermore, I think it's really important what she brought up, the 45 million Americans who have voted to protect marriage are not motivated by animus towards gay people, they're motivated out of love for the institution, and [crosstalk] if the Supreme Court were to rule that laws defining marriage are akin to bigotry, then every person in this country who believes that children have a right to a mother and father will be treated as bigots under the law, that's why Steve and others might agree with me that the Supreme Court's not going to go there. We can work this out through the political process. The debate can continue. Questions as central as marriage should not be decided by the Supreme Court they should be decided by the people."

Today he explains in US News & World Report why DOMA isn't mandated by the Due Process clause:

Those seeking to redefine marriage into a genderless institution must be pessimistic about their chances before the Supreme Court, because they are doing everything they can to prevent the Court from deciding whether the traditional definition marriage, as expressed in the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional. The Department of Justice refused to defend the statute, despite the fact that it was overwhelmingly passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton just a decade and a half ago. It now seeks to prevent the House of Representatives from defending the statute, so that the Court would not even have jurisdiction to hear the case.

But existing precedent is pretty clear—the Department can't deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction merely by refusing to do its duty and defend an Act of Congress; in such circumstances, Congress itself can intervene to defend a statute it passed.

Update -- video now fixed:

]]> http://www.nomblog.com/34120/feed 0 http://www.nomblog.com/34070 http://www.nomblog.com/34070#comments Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:00:35 +0000 NOM Staff http://www.nomblog.com/?p=34070 When asked about the Defense of Marriage Act, Speaker of the House John Boehner said:

"Let's not confused DOMA and the Administration's decision that it was unconstitutional. It's not their role to decide what's constitutional. DOMA was a law passed by the House, the Senate, and signed into law by President Clinton, and in our system of government the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional, the Supreme Court does."

Video:

"...We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries.

In two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments against the right of states to protect marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Judicial activism is to blame for the Court even considering these cases. The Supreme Court should uphold these laws. It must recognize that the American people should make these decisions, not unelected judges.

We are told that the social issues divide Americans and that we should stop talking about them. We cannot.

Economic and social conservatism go hand-in-hand. They’re natural allies. Strong families, churches and voluntary institutions build strong character and economic independence. And government must always remember we are endowed by our creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is true for you and me, and it is true for the unborn. When government understands its limited role, it can be smaller, people can be freer and our economy can create prosperity for everyone. And when government grows larger with programs like Obamacare that consume so much of our lives, it tramples on both economic freedom and religious liberty. This has united conservatives of all stripes to fight to end Obamacare so we can all be free to live our own lives."

You can read the rest of the speech and watch the video here.

... Hoping to avoid a marriage case being heard by the more conservative Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, several organizations fighting for marriage equality — including the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights — suggested in a December 2012 filing that the court hold off.

... Although courtroom successes have been plenty in challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, more direct marriage-rights cases have met with mixed results. Although courts in the Proposition 8 challenge have found the California amendment to be unconstitutional, federal marriage equality lawsuits in Hawaii and Nevada were rejected by trial courts.

... The case, initially filed in January 2012, came only after several LGBT organizations declined to participate, Dana Nessel, one of the couple's attorneys, told BuzzFeed Thursday. "What they told us is that they refuse to touch anything in the Sixth Circuit [Court of Appeals]."

The fear: they would lose.

Jay Kaplan of the ACLU of Michigan told BuzzFeed Friday that Nessel's assessment was accurate, saying, "If you're going to bring a marriage equality claim, you want to be sure that you're going to be successful at all stages of the process." Of the Sixth Circuit, he said, "There is not a progressive majority on the court." (BuzzFeed)

Attorneys representing House Republicans in litigation against the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court are asserting that the Justice Department lacks standing to participate in the lawsuit.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, under the direction of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, makes the argument in a 38-page brief filed on Friday in response to the court’s jurisdictional questions on standing in the challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, known as Windsor v. United States.

BLAG argues the Justice Department lacks standing because the Obama administration received the result it wanted from lower courts — including the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals — striking down DOMA.

“It obtained the precise relief it believed was appropriate based on the precise theory (heightened scrutiny) it advocated,” the brief states. “The executive can fare no better before this Court. While this Court’s affirmance would have a greater precedential impact, the executive cannot ground its appellate standing on a desire for an opinion with the identical effect on this case and controversy, but a broader precedential scope for other cases.” (The Washington Blade)

The Republican leaders of the House of Representatives urged the Supreme Court on Friday to cast aside the Obama administration’s appeal on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, though that already has been granted review, and to then take on the dispute in the GOP chiefs’ own case in defense of the law.

In a brief answering jurisdictional questions raised by the Court when it took on the DOMA dispute, the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) argued that it has a right under the Constitution’s Article III to be in court in DOMA cases.  It noted that the administration has stopped defending the law and instead is attacking it.

The new filing also contended that the New York woman who was at the center of the case the Court is reviewing does not have a right to appeal.  Both the administration and Ms. Windsor won in lower courts, getting everything that they wanted out of the controversy, and thus have given up their right to pursue the case in the Supreme Court.

“Without the House’s participation,” the document said, “it is hard to see how there is any case or controversy here at all.  Both Ms. Windsor and the executive agree that DOMA is unconstitutional and that Ms. Windsor was entitled to a refund [for an estate tax she paid].  And the lower courts granted them all the relief they requested.  Only the House’s intervention provides the adverseness that Article III demands.”

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

By forcing a federal definition of “spouse” and “marriage,” the administration argued in a brief, DOMA “violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples.”

The Obama administration has been urging courts to strike down DOMA for two years. Friday was the deadline to file briefs in the challenge to the 1996 law, scheduled to be heard March 27. (Politico)

During his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork said one of his attractions to the court was that it would be an “intellectual feast.” There is certainly a feast going over the impending Supreme Court consideration of same-sex marriage. A mountain of friend-of-the-court briefs has landed in the hands of the Supreme Court, some of them utterly fascinating.

Two of the briefs are notably interesting, one from Professor Robert George of Princeton and his talented young collaborators Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and Sherif Girgis who is toiling on a law degree at Yale and a Ph.D in Philosophy at Princeton.

... Bradley and McHugh want to convince the court that homosexuals do not rise to the level of a “suspect class” deserving of “heighted scrutiny” protection. Those in support of traditional marriage believe the people of California in the Proposition 8 case and that Congress in the Defense of Marriage Act all had “rational” reasons for their claims. It is a lower and much easier claim to defend. Prop 8 and DOMA plaintiffs want to claim “suspect class” which would force the defendants to make the much harder case that the state has a “compelling interest” in maintaining man-woman marriage.

In order to become a suspect class, however, homosexuals have to make the case that there is a history of discrimination against them, that they are politically powerless to fight back, and that theirs is a “discrete group” with “immutable characteristics.” This is not easy.

Bradley and McHugh make the case abundantly and perhaps surprisingly that the plaintiffs fail on the questions of both discreteness and immutability.

Many of us will recall the song from Sesame Street that begins, “One of these things is not like the other.” The song conveyed to viewers that not everything, or every relationship, is the same; we have different capabilities and purposes.

The government routinely sings this song as it recognizes and seeks to support certain relationships based on their uniqueness, their distinctive purpose, or their benefit to society.

One such relationship that is unlike any other is marriage.

Marriage is the unique relationship between a man and a woman—a relationship recognized throughout human history and by diverse cultures and faiths. Marriage distinguishes itself from any other because it unites the distinct and uniquely wonderful differences of men and women to bring forth and nurture society’s next generation.

While many relationships exist, the union of a man and a woman is unlike any other as no other relationship joins its participants as one united whole to create a new person. No other relationship is similarly situated in this special way.

The Manhattan Declaration describes marriage as “the first institution of society… on which all other human institutions have their foundation.” Understanding what marriage is – and why it matters – could not be more important.
Pending before the Supreme Court is USA v. Windsor, in which Edith Windsor, a lesbian claiming unfair treatment under federal estate tax law, seeks a declaration that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Because resolution of that and a companion case will decide how the Equal Protection Clause applies to marriage laws, the Court decision will not only affect federal policy, but will almost certainly impact outcomes in various states in a number of cases seeking to invalidate traditional marriage.

... If marriage is redefined, eventually millions of our children who are subject to adoption, foster care or custody disputes will be placed in living situations not based on the child’s best interest, but based on the new family structures the Supreme Court or individual states have decreed to be normative. For example, after Illinois enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, Attorney General Lisa Madigan warned Illinois child placement agencies of enforcement action if they “discriminate” based on marital status (including single, homosexual and unmarried). Ms. Madigan’s threat implicitly subordinates the “best interest of the child” standard to political dogma.

Ten U.S. senators have filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The 10, all Republicans, want the high court to overturn the rulings of multiple lower courts that cleared the way for same-sex marriage, McClatchy Newspapers reported.

In their friend-of-the-court brief, the senators said it is inconsistent for the Justice Department to have assured Congress the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, was constitutional in the mid-1990s and now raise questions about it.

"The time to speak was in 1996, when Congress gave careful consideration to the need for DOMA," the senators said.

Gay rights has emerged as an unexpected point of controversy in the congressional debate over immigration reform, prompting key Republicans to warn that it could derail efforts to reach a bipartisan compromise.

President Obama and some congressional Democrats are pushing for any immigration reform plan to include a provision to allow gay Americans to sponsor their immigrant partners for legal residency in the United States. That is a right currently enjoyed only by married heterosexual couples.

But Republican leaders on immigration reform say it's already going to be an uphill battle to convince their GOP colleagues to support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. Including a provision for gay partners will make reform legislation an even tougher sell, key senators said.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a pair of briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to uphold California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The briefs were drafted by lawyers for the LDS Church here in Utah and filed Jan. 29 before the nation’s top court on behalf of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-MIssouri Synod, the Romanian-American Evangelical Alliance of North America, Truth in Action Ministries, and the Mormon Church.

“Our theological perspectives, though often differing, converge to support the proposition that the traditional, opposite-sex definition of marriage in the civil law is not only constitutional but essential to the welfare of families, children, and society,” Von Keetch of the Utah-based firm Kirton McConkie, wrote in the DOMA brief.

... “The people of California violated no one’s civil rights when they adopted Proposition 8. Their twice-expressed preference for the traditional definition of marriage over an untested rival conception was thoroughly rational. It is therefore thoroughly constitutional,” Keetch wrote in the Prop. 8 brief.

In United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of government policies that reflect traditional marriage—that is, marriage as a union between one man and one woman. If the Court does not dismiss these cases on jurisdictional grounds, it should act to uphold traditional marriage. Nothing in the Court’s jurisprudence suggests that the right of same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages is so fundamental as to be protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Nor does the Equal Protection Clause require that result, given the societal purpose and value of marriage as furthering procreation and child-rearing. Because the Constitution does not speak to this question, it is one that is left to ordinary political processes, not to judicial fiat.

You can read the rest here.

"... Marriage as it has been defined throughout history - as the union of one man and one woman - is a great cause of unity for any culture, including our own. We know all too well what happens to society when marriage breaks down and government interferes with the rights of men and women to come together and form healthy, lifelong marriages.  The President's obsession with redefining marriage has prevented him in his first term from doing anything of substance to support and advance the institution of marriage for the vast majority of Americans. That is where his emphasis should be. 

Americans remain united in support of the commonsense definition of marriage. A poll taken after the most recent elections showed that 60% of Americans agree that marriage is between one man and one woman. Twenty percent of Americans in that same poll said marriage was one of their top three issues. The vast majority of states define marriage as the union of husband and wife and the vast majority of Americans who have been given a chance to vote on the question have supported that definition as well.

... We eagerly await the Supreme Court's decision on the question of whether Americans have a right to protect marriage in law.

In the meantime, Americans should unite in support of the commonsense definition of marriage. The longer our leaders insist on throwing their words and weight behind the movement to redefine marriage the more they will continue to divide our beloved nation."

"Natural law, the nature of the human person, and common sense provide ample reason to preserve marriage as it has always been understood." Explained John Mauck, the Chicago attorney with the firm of Mauck & Baker, who submitted the brief on behalf of the Manhattan Declaration...

View the entire press release here.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on January 29 filed amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, both of which  confirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

.... Urging the Court to uphold DOMA the USCCB brief in United States v. Windsor says that “there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” The brief also states that “as defined by courts ‘sexual orientation’ is not a classification that should trigger heightened scrutiny,” such as race or ethnicity would. 

It added that “civil recognition of same-sex relationships is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition—quite the opposite is true. Nor can the treatment of such relationships as marriages be said to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”

USCCB argued that previous Supreme Court decisions “describing marriage as a fundamental right plainly contemplate the union of one man and one woman.”

The USCCB also cautioned that a decision invalidating DOMA “would have adverse consequences in other areas of law.”

... In a separate brief filed in Hollingsworth v Perry urging the Court to uphold Proposition 8, the USCCB states that there are many reasons why the state may reasonably support and encourage marriage, understood as the union of one man and one woman, as distinguished from other relationships. Government support for marriage, so understood, is “recognizing the unique capacity of opposite-sex couples to procreate” and “the unique value to children of being raised by their mother and father together.”

The House Republican leadership Tuesday filed a brief in the Supreme Court urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act as constitutional, arguing that the Obama administration "abdicated its duty to defend DOMA's constitutionality" in February 2011 and instead started "attacking" the law in court.

As to the law itself, the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — controlled 3-2 by Republicans in light of their House majority — argued that the federal government had the authority to legislate in an attempt to ensure "national uniformity" regarding the provision of federal benefits. The House leaders argue that in addition to the federal reasons, the Congress could act for the same reasons many states have acted to ban same-sex couples from marrying. They wrote:

There is a unique relationship between marriage and procreation that stems from marriage's origins as a means to address the tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unintended and unplanned offspring. There is nothing irrational about declining to extend marriage to same-sex relationships that, whatever their other similarities to opposite-sex relationships, simply do not share that same tendency. Congress likewise could rationally decide to foster relationships in which children are raised by both of their biological parents.

Arguing that the federal government has the same power as state governments do to define marriage, the Republican members of the House of Representatives’ leadership told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not attempt to exclude anyone from government benefits but seeks only to define what marriage means under federal laws and programs.   It means, as the Act says, that marriage for all federal purposes is a union between one man and one woman.

... The brief made a strenuous argument against raising the constitutional standard for judging laws that treat gays and lesbians less favorably.  The GOP brief contended that those individuals do not need such protection.  “Gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best-organized groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history.   Characterizing such a group as politically powerless would be wholly inconsistent with this Court’s admonition that a class should not be regarded as suspect when the group has some ‘ability to attract the attention of lawmakers.’”

Both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the brief noted, have decided to “stop defending and start attacking DOMA itself,” and those developments show “the remarkable political clout of the same-sex marriage movement.”

In his new article on the subject, he explains why arguments for equality and against discrimination don't apply to same-sex partners:

"...For almost two centuries, equality before the law had been denied to Americans of African descent; that blatant injustice was challenged by a movement of moral persuasion and legal maneuver; the movement was ultimately vindicated by a change of hearts, minds, and statutes. If then, on matters of race, why not now, on the question of who can marry? That’s the argument; it has considerable emotive power. 

But it’s wrong.

In their recent book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (Encounter Books), three Catholic thinkers with Princeton connections—Robert P. George (who holds Woodrow Wilson’s old chair at that eminent university) and two of his former students, Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson—argue persuasively, and on grounds of reason, that America can’t arrive at a serious answer to this question—Should government redefine marriage to include same-sex partnerships?—by appealing to equality.

Why not? Because every marriage policy in every polity known to history draws boundaries, excluding some types of relationships from marriage. Parents can’t marry their children. Brothers and sisters can’t marry. People beneath a certain age can’t marry. People who are already married can’t marry.

In other words, governments, whether autocratic, aristocratic, monarchical, or democratic, have always “discriminated”—i.e., made distinctions—in their marriage laws. And in that sense, there is no “equality” issue in marriage law similar to the equality that racial minorities rightly sought, and won, in the civil rights movement."

Regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Prop 8 case, [Rep. Barney] Frank is less jazzed.

“I was critical of the decision to take Prop 8 to court,” he said. “I don’t the think the five-member Supreme Court majority that we have is ready to declare that there is a constitutional right to marry everywhere. To bring a lawsuit when you’re not likely to win it, prematurely, is a mistake. So I was very critical of those people in California who were doing that. When the Supreme Court decides the Prop 8 case, what I believe is likely to happen is that they will accept the decision by of the circuit court in the west coast [ the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had narrowed the decision to apply only to California]. It’s people being rescued from themselves. Some of them are still trying to push the broader case, which I think is a mistake.”

2012 was an important year for marriage.

And while we were disappointed by some of the recent election outcomes, it's important to remember the many victories this past year brought in the fight to protect marriage.

NOM was integral to each of these victories—often initiating and leading them, and other times as the single largest donor in support of the winning cause.

Marriage is winning . . .

We have a great opportunity to continue winning historic victories for marriage in the new year, and we want you to be a part of it!

Please click here now to make a year-end contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more to NOM and help us blaze a trail to new victories in 2013.

Marriage faces some enormous battles in the next year and NOM is getting ready to fight them . . . and WIN!

Please re-commit to the fight and stand with us in defense of marriage.

P. S. Gay marriage is NOT inevitable. The greatest danger the defenders of true marriage face is complacency and despair. We can WIN for marriage! We've done it before, time and again! The year ahead is critically important, and we need your help today to give marriage the defense it needs—the defense it deserves. Please watch our Top 10 Marriage Victories of 2012 video now, and prayerfully consider making a year-end contribution to help NOM bring about even more great wins in 2013!

Believe me when I say that gay marriage advocates are very afraid of the Prop 8 and DOMA cases that the Supreme Court will hear next year.

And that's why they are going to open 2013 with another major campaign in several new target states to push their radical agenda forward.

It's a desperate gamble - a last ditch effort to convince the Supreme Court that the country is in favor of gay marriage.

And that's why I need your help now.

Now is the time - in anticipation of the most important fight marriage has ever faced - to stand up and make your voice heard.

Please make a year-end donation to NOM today of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more to help us send a clear and decisive message to the Supreme Court that the American people don't want elite judges and politicians redefining marriage for everyone.

Gay marriage activists are mobilizing to try to push same-sex marriage bills through the legislatures in Rhode Island, Delaware and Illinois next month.

Even more surprising, they are gathering signatures in Ohio to put same-sex marriage on the ballot, trying to repeal the marriage amendment passed into law in 2004. Ohio is not a state that is friendly to their cause - marriage won with over 61% of the vote.

Why this illogical push in a state so set against their cause? Because they know that they need to hit a home run before the Supreme Court hears their case.
Marriage supporter, your contribution will help us contact and mobilize thousands of pro-marriage activists in these target states to make a statement in the months before the Supreme Court hears these two high-stakes cases.We need all of our supporters, friends and people of faith all across the country to immediately step up and contribute to help us win this all important battle. Please make an immediate year-end contribution to help us deliver a historic victory for marriage in 2013.

In addition, it will help us advance pro-marriage legislation in states like Indiana, whose legislature has a chance to put a marriage amendment before the voters.

We have an incredible opportunity to make sure the true definition of marriage is defended not only in these states, but - through the pending Supreme Court ruling - in every state in the country!

We have the chance to win a game-changing victory in 2013. We've done it before and we can do it again! But we need you to stand up and financially invest in this fight right away.

Please make a year-end donation that has the potential to resonate throughout history by preserving our civilization's foundational institution.

P.S. It's not an exaggeration to say that the fate of marriage in America could be decided in the coming months. This is a fight that we CANNOT afford to lose. That's why I need you to follow this link to make an immediate contribution of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more to defend marriage in this critical hour. I'm counting on faithful Americans like you to enable us to do what is necessary to give marriage the defense that it not only needs, but deserves. Thank you.

"...The saga of the anti-Prop. 8 lawsuit would make an unbelievable novel. No federal district judge has ever committed more egregious acts of malfeasance and manifest bias in a case than Vaughn Walker. In the end, Judge Walker concocted a federal constitutional right to same-sex "marriage" and based that right on a set of absurd factual findings. Only after he finished with the case and retired did he disclose that he was in the midst of a long-term same-sex relationship — which means that he had been ruling on his own legal right to marry his same-sex partner.

To compound the farce: The Ninth Circuit ruling on appeal, which also held Prop. 8 to be unconstitutional, was written by notorious liberal activist Stephen Reinhardt. Judge Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, directed an American Civil Liberties Union affiliate that filed briefs in support of the Prop. 8 challengers in the same case and publicly rejoiced over Judge Walker’s ruling. Yet Judge Reinhardt somehow refused to disqualify himself from deciding the appeal. Then, in a transparent effort to evade Supreme Court review, he ruled that Prop. 8 was invalid on the narrower (but infirm) ground that it took away a right that the state Supreme Court had previously conferred.

The Supreme Court ought to reverse both the DOMA ruling and the Prop. 8 ruling when it decides these cases at the end of June 2013. Under any sensible interpretation, the Constitution simply does not speak, one way or the other, to the question of same-sex "marriage," but instead leaves the matter to the realm of representative government for decision — to each state to determine its own marriage laws and to Congress to determine what marriage means in provisions of federal law." -- National Catholic Register

"...Back in 2010, this column made essentially the same prediction [that Kennedy would support gay marriage], and on the same grounds. Now we're not so sure. It seems to us that Kennedy's "powerful, eloquent and compelling" language in these two rulings--as well as Justice Antonin Scalia's language in dissent, equally deserving of those adjectives--makes them seem more sweeping than they actually were, especially the first of the two, Romer v. Evans (1996). 

Romer was the case that struck down Colorado's Amendment 2, a ballot measure amending the state's constitution to bar laws or policies protecting homosexuals from discrimination.

... As it turns out, however, in 1997 a federal appeals court drew precisely that distinction in allowing to stand a law similar in many ways to Amendment 2. The following year the Supreme Court let the lower court's ruling stand, as the Cincinnati Enquirer reported at the time...

... Kennedy may be as activist and results-oriented (on this matter, anyway) as Erwin Chemerinsky thinks. His moralizing rhetoric in Romer and Lawrence certainly has led us to think so. But there's nothing in the legal logic of those cases that makes a constitutional right to same-sex marriage inexorable.

"...Properly framed, the question raised by the Supreme Court's upcoming constitutional review of California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act is whether states and the federal government can legally define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman?

The answer is, clearly, yes.

The United States Constitution says nothing about marriage. The issue of what relationships government recognizes as marriage is a political question, not a constitutional one. States have always been able determine who may legally marry in their states. There are many limitations in the right to marry, including those concerning consanguinity. First cousins are prohibited from marrying in most states, but permitted in others. Some states recognize as valid cousin marriages performed elsewhere, but other states deny them legal recognition. If states have the power to limit marriage to relationships that are not too closely related by blood, surely they have the right to codify the intrinsic male/female nature of marriage.

Similarly, the federal government has the right to define marriage as one man and one woman. Since the purpose of publicly recognizing marriage is to encourage men and women to form stable families to bear and raise children, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to provide benefits and incentives to encourage such family formation. Indeed, encouraging marriage was so important that the federal government even conditioned statehood for Utah on them prohibiting polygamy and adopting laws in line with traditional norms of marriage.

"...Prior to the Perry challenge to Proposition 8, no judge had ever found a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Such a contention has expressly been rejected by the Supreme Court itself in its 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson. That's why, before Perry, most legal experts felt it was a huge gamble for gay rights advocates to mount a federal constitutional challenge to traditional marriage laws. But the Hollywood funders of the Perry lawsuit proceeded anyway. I predict their gamble will go bust when the court rules that more than 7 million Californians were perfectly within their rights to define marriage in the traditional way, just as citizens in virtually every nation since the dawn of time have done. 

... if states have the right to define marriage, doesn't the federal government have that same right? It's the constitutional duty of our elected officials to decide what burden taxpayers bear in dealing with same-sex couples. Federal laws encourage men and women to marry and have children because society has a profound interest in ensuring that children are born (to continue society) and then raised by their parents to become responsible adults.

It is not unconstitutional for the government to treat different things differently. Whatever one thinks about homosexual relationships, they are not the same as the male/female relationship in their potential for creating children, which is why we have laws encouraging marriage in the first place."

Here is the action item we posted recently related to this bill:

The NDAA is headed to a House/Senate conference committee to iron out the differences between the bills passed by the two bodies. Because the House version already contains the provision protecting marriage, we need to urge the members of the conference committee to protect the religious liberty language, ensuring that it is retained in the final version.

Please click here to contact your senators and representative today! A copy of your letter will also be sent to House Speaker John Boehner, and Senator John McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"...The Supreme Court should reverse these lower-court rulings, and straightforwardly affirm the right of the people in any state to act, constitutionally or legislatively, to adopt the traditional view of marriage as a relationship oriented toward procreation. The justices need not themselves hold that view — they may consider it outmoded or rationally inferior to a conception of marriage that treats it first and foremost as an emotional union of adults — to see that the Constitution erects no barrier to it, and that states therefore have the freedom to act on it. 

Of the various arguments advanced for a constitutional “right” of same-sex marriage, none withstands even momentary scrutiny by accepted standards. Are gays and lesbians a powerless and oppressed minority? One can hardly say that after the November elections, in which the cause of same-sex marriage was victorious in four states, in a year when it was also embraced by the president of the United States and enshrined in the platform of the larger of our major parties. Is it rationally indefensible to reserve the institution of marriage to the only kind of union — one man and one woman — that is capable of procreation, and to the kind of union that is proven to be the best general setting for the rearing of children? The question answers itself.

Are laws protecting this time-honored institution founded upon a culpable animus against persons of homosexual inclination? Such a conclusion would rest on three errors. First, it would confuse the law’s purpose with the putative motives of some who support it. Second, it would accuse some citizens — citizens holding moral opinions about behavior that the Constitution plainly permits them to act upon — of a personal animosity of which they are not guilty. Finally, it would be blind to the plain fact that in a society that is increasingly open and tolerant regarding homosexuality, many Americans find it easy to join in such welcoming attitudes while believing quite sensibly that governmental recognition of same-sex couples as married is incompatible with the purpose for which marriage policy exists in the first place: to foster stability in the sort of relationships that can give rise to children."

"We are ecstatic that the court took the case. Folks may not remember this but the lawyers for those that wanted to overturn Proposition 8 actually asked the Supreme Court to not take the case. That would have created gay marriage almost immediately in California and they would have used it as a precedent throughout the country. By the court accepting the case, we can get a resolution on this.

“It takes four votes [for the high court] to take a case. That shows that we at least have four votes. We’re going to have more and that’s because the arguments being made by the other side I just don’t think are going to withstand the court’s scrutiny. There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage and the court’s going to find that.”

"...The decisions the Court will be reviewing have embraced something like a “substantive equal protection” doctrine.

... The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to wave the lower courts off this program of social engineering through a results-oriented jurisprudence.

The Court has appropriately cabined the more expansive applications of substantive due process so that courts may not create “rights” unknown to text, history and tradition. The concerns prompting this curb are also present in an attempt to impose a result with no mooring in Constitutional provisions, practice, or precedent through the Equal Protection Clause. Such a program ends an ongoing debate with complex and sensitive implications for family policy, religious freedom, federalism, etc.

... The justification for a novel application of equal protection has been that normal procedures for lawmaking are hopelessly inadequate for protecting certain identifiable groups. This is manifestly not the case in the marriage context. There is no reason, far from it, to believe the people of the states cannot, directly or through their representatives, appropriately respond to claims that marriage ought to be redefined. The claim that advocates of redefining marriage are politically powerless does not ring true."

"There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage. Our Founding Fathers didn't see it that way and the last Supreme Court decision, Nelson v. Baker, the United States Supreme Court said there was no federal question here, so this is essentially making the law up as you go along, it is reading into the Constitution [which] is not there, and I do not believe the United States Supreme Court is going to launch another culture war, Just like Roe v. Wade did not end the abortion debate, creating a right to redefine marriage will not end this debate it will exacerbate it."

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the bishops' Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, responded to today's U. S. Supreme Court decision to hear the case challenging California's Proposition 8 and a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear these cases is a significant moment for our nation," Archbishop Cordileone said. "I pray the Court will affirm the fact that the institution of marriage, which is as old as humanity and written in our very nature, is the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is the foundation of a just society, as it protects the most vulnerable among us, children.It is the only institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers together. We pray for the Court, that its deliberations may be guided by truth and justice so as to uphold marriage's true meaning and purpose," Archbishop Cordileone said.

...Earlier this week the bishops issued a Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty as part of a pastoral response for the protection of life, marriage and liberty. Information is available at www.usccb.org/life-marriage-liberty.

Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the petition for certiorari filed on Wednesday by defenders of Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage. Cormac covered the petition, which comes directly from the federal district court, in yesterday’s round-up. JURIST also has additional coverage of the petition.  At Buzzfeed, Chris Geidner outlines several reasons why the petitioners might want to bypass the Ninth Circuit, noting that in this case, “people supporting maintaining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman won,” whereas in all ten of the other pending petitions, same-sex marriage supporters prevailed. Finally, at the Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter explains why he thinks the Court will deny the Nevada petition, including because “the fact that the Nevada case presents the ‘fundamental issue’ of whether same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry actually cuts against immediate review,” as the Court “usually likes to move in a more minimalist fashion, reserving the largest issues for resolution after more development in the lower courts.”

So stay tuned!

He points out: "Just [this week], a federal judge in Nevada pointed out that those state victories for gay marriage show that states have a right to figure out this question for themselves and that we don't the Supreme Court to introduce any new fundamental rights into the Constitution including the absurd right to same-sex marriage. We think that when all is said and done marriage will have a good day at the Supreme Court and that's why we're looking forward to the court taking up both of theses cases."

Brian Brown makes his predictions:

"Almost everyone on both sides agrees that the [Supreme] Court is going to take the DOMA cases and we believe, we're confident, the court is going to take the [Prop 8] Perry case. I think ultimately [the Court] will rule in our favor, in favor of the voters of California and the majority of states that have voted to protect marriage, the overwhelming majority, and in favor of the Constitution as it's clearly written. There is no constitutional right, our Founders did not create some sort of constitutional right to redefine marriage and I think the Court's going to rule that way."

Brian Brown's take on the mutually exclusive legal arguments behind same-sex marriage:

"On the attempt to overturn DOMA [our opponents] are arguing that states like Massachusetts that have passed same-sex marriage, that somehow that preempts Congress from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that because the states define [marriage] the federal government has to recognize that. So they're essentially making a strange states rights' argument, but the federal government and our duly-elected representatives don't have a right to define marriage. On the other hand, they're arguing in the Perry case, the Proposition 8 case, that not only does the government have a right to define marriage -- there's an obligation in the U.S. Constitution to recognize and redefine marriage as same-sex marriage.

So on the one hand they're arguing the U.S. Constitution demands same-sex marriage, it's the federal government that has to redefine marriage throughout the country and overturn all of these laws that have been passed overwhelmingly in these 30 states through Constitutional amendments and 10 other states through statute ...  and in the DOMA case it's arguing no, no, it's a states' issue.

So they're trying to argue two different things and I think that's why taking all the cases all at once will expose all of the sort of hypocrisy going on in these two very different and mutually exclusive arguments they're making."

The Supreme Court on Monday released added orders from its Friday Conference, but the list did not include any on the ten cases dealing with the same-sex marriage issue.  It now appears that those cases will be rescheduled for the Conference this Friday morning.

The running fight over gay marriage is shifting from the ballot box to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will consider all ten of the same-sex marriage petitions at its private Conference on November 30, instead of at the next session on November 20, according to the Court’s electronic docket.   Eight of the filings deal with the constitutionality of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, limiting marriage for all federal purposes to a union of a man and a woman.  One petition deals with the validity of an Arizona law, similar to DOMA, that limits benefits for married state employees.  And the tenth is an attempt to revive California’s “Proposition 8,” imposing a statewide ban on marriage for gays and lesbians.   All of the laws at issue had been struck down in lower courts.

The Court has given no reason for re-scheduling these petitions, but one possible explanation is that the choice of which to review and what issues to consider is a complex one that may require added time for consideration.

That's why it's so important that marriage head into the Supreme Court with a perfect winning record.

Find out how you can help at www.StandForMarriageAmerica.com.

The chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage has called a federal court’s decision to strike down the key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act “unjust and a great disappointment.”

“The recognition that marriage is and can only be the union of one man and one woman is grounded in our nature, being clear from the very way our bodies are designed,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco. “This recognition obliges our consciences and laws. It is a matter of basic rights—the right of every child to be welcomed and raised, as far as possible, by his or her mother and father together in a stable home.”

“Marriage is the only institution whereby a man and a woman unite for life and are united to any child born from their union,” he added. “The public good demands that the unique meaning and purpose of marriage be respected in law and society, not rejected as beyond the constitutional pale. Redefining marriage never upholds the equal dignity of individuals because it contradicts basic human rights.”

Washington, D.C.—Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statement today in response to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution's equal protection clause:

"This is yet another example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing their views on the American people, and further demonstrates why it is imperative for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review in the currently pending DOMA cases as well as to the Proposition 8 case. The American people are entitled to a definitive ruling in support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as 32 states have determined through popular vote."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President, or John Eastman, Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, eray@crcpublicrelations.com, (x130) or Jen Campbell, jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com (x145) at 703-683-5004.

Peter Wolfgang, director of the conservative Family Institute of Connecticut, has taken back his endorsement of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon, although he is still voting for her “because her victory could mean the end of Roe v. Wade.”

The announcement, first reported by the Hartford Courant, was on the institute’s Facebook page Monday.

Wolfgang had endorsed McMahon in September, but pulled back when she said after a political debate Sunday that she now backs repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“I’m still voting for Linda because her victory could mean the end of Roe v. Wade. But because Linda McMahon flip-flopped and now supports a repeal of DOMA — the one federal law that stops Connecticut’s judicially imposed re-definition of marriage from being imposed on the rest of the nation — my September 18th endorsement of her is no longer accurate,” he wrote on Facebook. -- New Haven Register

"[Marriage is] the foundation for society and for family for thousands of years. First of all, Mitt Romney and I — I’ll just say it, it’s worth repeating — we believe marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s number one. Number two, you know where I come from we had one of those amendments in Wisconsin, I was a big supporter of it and we passed it like you say, where it’s put on the ballot it passes. The second point is, President Obama gave up defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, I mean, not only is this decision to abandon this law the wrong decision, it passed in a bipartisan manner, it is very troubling because it undermines not only traditional marriage but it contradicts our system of government. It’s not the president’s job to pick and choose which laws he likes. A Romney administration will protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves."

White House press secretary Jay Carney today refused to say whether President Obama would want the Supreme Court to take a case that could lead to same-sex couples across the country being able to marry.

The administration has not taken a position on whether the court should review a lower court decision striking down California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages, and the White House was not willing to take a position on that issue today.

Asked if the administration wants the court to take the Proposition 8 case, Carney said, "I will ask you to direct it to the Justice Department. I'm not going to make policy toward Supreme Court cases from here."

... neither the president nor his administration have taken any specific actions supporting litigation aimed at court rulings declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. -- BuzzFeed

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and fellow Republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi introduced a bill Tuesday that would ban same-sex weddings on military bases and allow military chaplains to refuse to officiate such unions.

Current policy is to follow state law on the matter of same-sex marriage.

Inhofe and Wicker said the bill, called the Military Religious Freedom Act, is an attempt to apply the Defense of Marriage Act to the Department of Defense in the wake of a policy change allowing openly gay men and lesbians in the military.

I begin with two observations about that: a) it's ironic they would do so considering a plurality of Democrats in North Carolina just voted a few months ago to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and b) social issues sure appear to factor in greatly for Democrats.

I wonder when the media will get the memo about both:

"...This is the face the modern democrat party wants to project: pro planned parenthood men (which really means pro planned parenthood women) and parents with gay kids (which really means gay parents) as the centerpiece of their convention.

In other words, people whose very identity is tied up with progressive politics. People who look to the government to secure their “right” to have government pay for their contraception and (when that fails) abortions and who demand government redefine marriage according to their definition and then force that definition upon the rest of society. That’s who the Democrat party wants to cater to.

Trampled underfoot in both these actions is, of course, religious liberty. It is, after all, only the Christian (and often particularly Catholic) witness in defense of the dignity of every human person and in defense of marriage and family that stands in the way of the sweeping social changes championed by the modern progressive movement. For the DNC to reach its public goals it must undermine and discredit the public witness of people of traditional faith and Catholics in particular. That’s an astonishing state of affairs, but I’m convinced it’s the reality we now inhabit."

The Republican Party platform will strongly oppose the Obama administration's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that bars recognition of same-sex couples' marriages, in court and will support "a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," according to the draft platform language approved by subcommittees today.

The language must still be adopted by the full committee on Tuesday and then by the convention delegates in Tampa next week. According to the draft documents obtained by BuzzFeed from two subcommittees, the Restoring Constitutional Government subcommittee and the Health, Education and Crime subcommittee, the platform will take those two positions, as well as "support[ing] campaigns underway in several other states" to amend their constitutions to recognize only marriages between one man and one woman.

...Calling out "an activist judiciary," the draft document blasts "court-ordered redefinition of marriage" before taking on the Obama administration.

"We oppose the Administration's open defiance of this principle [of separation of powers] — in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts," the draft states.

Finally, after praising the benefits of marriage, the draft documents state, "[W]e believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage." -- BuzzFeed

The decision of the Obama administration to change sides in the litigation over the Defense of Marriage Act got lots of mainstream press attention. The recent decision of 15 states to proactively file a brief supporting the Defense of Marriage Act at the U.S. Supreme Court has not gotten the same attention. That’s too bad, because the states’ brief makes some important arguments.

The states point out that the decision the Court is being asked to review creates a legal standard out of whole cloth and that if the circuit court’s analysis were taken seriously, it would require not only the invalidation of DOMA but of every marriage law in the United States. This latter point is crucial. DOMA may be the specific target now, but the litigation over it (and the related litigation over Proposition 8 ) is, ultimately, about establishing a new constitutional approach to marriage laws (similar to the context specific standards that have arisen in order to protect the “right” to abortion) that could be used to mandate redefinition in every state.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Below are three important (and easy!) steps that I'm asking you to take to defend marriage today. It will only take a few minutes of your time, and when you're finished, please forward this message on to your friends. Together we're making a difference!

STEP ONE: National Eat at Chick-fil-A Days!

Thanks to the many of you who have enthusiastically responded to my call to stand up and support Dan and Truett Cathy. There are a number of groups joining together in the effort to thank the Cathy family for their courage and grace under fire.

With Mike Huckabee calling on the listeners of his show to go out and eat at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1, we're extending our effort to include both this Wednesday and next! So, please head out to your local Chick-fil-A restaurant this Wednesday, the 25th, and next Wednesday, the 1st, and let the manager know that you're there to thank the Cathy family for their bravery and for all their good work!

STEP TWO: Send a message to the out-of-control Mayor of Boston

"You don't belong here."

That's what Boston's mayor, Thomas Menino, has told Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A: "You don't belong in Boston."

The mayor's reasoning? Because Boston is "an open city… a city that's at the forefront of inclusion."

The hypocrisy is ludicrous.

Menino, of course, is an outspoken promoter of same-sex marriage, just another out-of-touch politician ignorant of the fact that the American people have consistently rejected same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Luckily for Mr. Menino, the people of Massachusetts haven't been allowed to vote on marriage; but they will be allowed to vote on him—and if he isn't nervous, he probably should be.

What kind of mayor denies a large and flourishing company from settling in his city, just because that company's president disagrees with the mayor's own radical same-sex marriage agenda? A mayor who cares neither for his constituents or the Constitution!

Menino has allowed his own bias to cloud his judgment, and he is sending a very poor signal to any prospective business that doesn't want politicians' meddling for the sake of scoring points with their wealthy donors and lobbyists. Besides that, Menino has insulted faith-based business owners and the majority of Americans who don't want to be forced to compromise their moral integrity to serve the whims of the same-sex marriage camp.

Join me in letting Mayor Menino know that his bullying of Chick-fil-A is out of keeping with his Office as Mayor!

Click here to send your own message to Mayor Menino to voice your outrage at his unjust attacks on Mr. Cathy and Chick-fil-A. I hope you'll send a message right away—it only takes a minute! The mayor needs to know how out of touch he is with the majority of voters who recognize marriage as the unique and sacred union of one man and one woman, and that he cannot get away with bullying those who won't step in line with his own radical agenda.

STEP THREE: Tell Congress to Stand Firm on DOMA

Last Thursday, the United States House of Representatives voted 247-166 to adopt the King Amendment, which prohibits the use of Department of Defense funds to violate the Defense of Marriage Act.

This was a very important vote, halting at least one part of the continuous effort by the White House and certain members of the Legislature to chip away at DOMA piece by piece. Over the past year, a continuous battle against DOMA has been building at the highest levels of the Obama administration's Defense Department, producing new Navy "sensitivity guidelines" requiring chaplains to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies and a Department of Defense memo requiring that all military facilities be available for same-sex weddings.

We've put together an action center where you can send a customized message to your own Representatives and Senators, either to thank them for standing firm in support of DOMA or urging them to respect the voice of the American people in the future with respect to this important issue. A thank you message will also be sent to Rep. Steve King for his leadership in passing the amendment. Click here to send your important message to Congress today!

I hope you will take some time out today to accomplish these quick action steps. Thanks again for all you are doing to protect marriage!

The House has approved an amendment to the 2013 defense spending bill that would prohibit the Department of Defense from using any money in the bill to violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). 

The amendment, from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), was approved 247-166, one of dozens of amendments the House was considering before approving the entire bill late Thursday night. The amendment was supported by 17 Democrats, and just five Republicans opposed it.

King said the language, similar versions of which have passed the House before, is needed because of President Obama's growing support for same-sex marriage. King said that support is permeating the federal government.

... DOD issued memos last year saying certain military facilities might be used for same-sex marriage, and that military chaplains may officiate in same-sex marriages. King said those policy changes violate DOMA, under which the federal government recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman.

"Pretty simple statute being contravened by the directives of the president of the United States as exercised through the secretary of Defense," King said.

"...So let’s assume DOMA will be the first gay rights case to reach the Roberts Court. Is Socarides’ right that the chief justice will again show "a willingness to break with his more conservative colleagues"?

I wouldn’t bet on it—at least not if we take Roberts at his word. Remember that Roberts framed his vote upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as an exercise of judicial restraint, writing in his opinion, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” I don't see why Roberts wouldn't rely on that same principle and vote to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act. Both Obamacare and DOMA are duly-enacted federal laws, after all.

If you cheered the chief's ruling on health care, don't be shocked when he grants the same deferential treatment to a federal law you don't like."

Legal scholar Jonathan Adler over at the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog agrees.

“Six federal courts have ruled on the Defense of Marriage Act and reached the same conclusion”—that DOMA is unconstitutional. So declares the New York Times in its house editorial today, in a half-truth that rises above the NYT’s usual level of accuracy. It’s also true, as the House of Representatives’ certiorari petition spells out (on pp. 9-10), that five or so federal courts have rejected the constitutional challenge to DOMA,[...]

... The NYT also states that the “legal challenge over federal benefits [DOMA] is a matter separate from the broader question of whether gay people have a constitutional right to marry.” But, notwithstanding confusion over false federalism interests supposedly implicated by DOMA (see my point 3.b here), I see no plausible basis on which the Court could invalidate DOMA without adopting reasoning that would compel invention of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. So don’t be snookered by the suggestion that the two issues are meaningfully distinct.

The plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits challenging DOMA (the first California case to get to the Ninth Circuit) have filed their brief with the court and are reportedly arguing, among other things, that “DOMA is an unprecedented departure from this nation’s federalist tradition, the first time in our history that Congress has intruded on the states’ sovereignty in determining who is validly married.” To twist a famous quote from Justice Holmes, a page of history is worth a volume of misinformation. This argument is squarely in the latter category, as even a brief perusal of history would make clear. 

... the Ninth Circuit has access to this information in an amicus brief we filed for the National Organization for Marriage a few weeks ago. We can only hope the court will be more careful than the plaintiffs on this matter.

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."

A day after electing their first African-American president, Southern Baptists were considering a resolution Wednesday opposing the idea that gay rights are the same as civil rights.

The resolution up for a vote at the denomination's annual meeting in New Orleans affirms Southern Baptists' beliefs that marriage is "the exclusive union of one man and one woman" and that "all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful."

It acknowledges that gays and lesbians sometimes experience "unique struggles" but declares that they lack the "distinguishing features of classes entitled to special protections."

"It is regrettable that homosexual rights activists and those who are promoting the recognition of 'same-sex marriage' have misappropriated the rhetoric of the Civil Rights Movement," the resolution states.

Another resolution to be considered Wednesday is intended to protect religious liberty. It includes a call for the U.S. Justice Department to cease efforts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and for the Obama administration to ensure that military personnel and chaplains can freely express their religious convictions about homosexuality.

Last month, when President Obama finally endorsed gay marriage after years of equivocation, he emphasized that he still thinks states should be free to address the issue as they see fit. Since many voters strongly oppose gay marriage, it is clear why Obama advocates a federalist approach to the question. But it is not clear that he logically can.

... Obama does not argue that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment by impermissibly intruding on a power that the Constitution reserves to the states. Instead he says the law violates the guarantee of equal protection implicit in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

... In fact, [DOJ's] Holder and Obama implicitly have staked out a stronger position against state bans on gay marriage than the 9th Circuit did. Under the heightened scrutiny favored by Obama, the government must show that a legal distinction based on sexual orientation is "substantially related to an important government objective."

... many other states' gay marriage bans could be vulnerable under the heightened scrutiny that Obama applied to DOMA.

Obama may wish to avoid the implications of his constitutional logic until after the presidential election. But if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the California case this fall and asks the solicitor general to weigh in, that may not be possible.

"...A very important part of the brief [filed by the 10 senators in defense of DOMA] is its response to “a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial role in passing on the constitutionality of a federal statute.” The brief explains that nothing in constitutional law “authorizes a court to strike down an otherwise constitutional law based on the belief that legislators individually, or the Congress as a whole, were motivated by ‘animus.’ Adopting any such doctrine would be highly dangerous to the separation-of-powers and the proper functioning of our constitutional system.”

In fact, they explain, the accusation of animus “is little more than an attempt to win an argument by disparaging the motives of the other side.” The senators characterize what the trial court did in this case: “The District Court’s approach cherry-picks statements made by individual members, construes them as reflective of improper motivation, and then imputes these improper motives to the Congress as a whole.” Among other problems with this approach, the brief points out: “Scouring the congressional record for ‘sound-bites’ to divine and disparage the motives of individual legislators also chills the freedom of legislative speech that is the hallmark of robust democratic debate.”

"Nothing in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the senators contend, "authorizes a court to strike down an otherwise constitutional law based on the belief that legislators individually, or the Congress as a whole, were motivated by 'animus,'" states the brief, which is signed by Michael Stern of Fairfax, Va.

"Judicial 'psychoanalysis' of legislative motives, to use Justice Cardozo's phrase, is a highly subjective exercise, which threatens needless friction between the branches," the brief continues. "Scouring the congressional record for 'sound-bites' to divine and disparage the motives of individual legislators also chills the freedom of legislative speech that is the hallmark of robust democratic debate."

In a footnote, the senators added that they didn't appreciate White's comparison of the arguments for DOMA with historical arguments against interracial marriage, either.

Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when DOMA was passed, received written assurances from the Clinton Justice Department that the legislation was constitutional, the brief states."

A federal judge in Manhattan joined a growing chorus of judges across the country Wednesday by striking down a key component of a federal law denying benefits to partners in a gay marriage.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones said the federal Defense of Marriage Act's efforts to define marriage "intrude upon the states' business of regulating domestic relations."

She said, "That incursion skirts important principles of federalism and therefore cannot be legitimate, in this court's view."

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Lately Sen. Claire McCaskill has been on national TV like Charlie Rose and Chris Matthews calling herself one of the lone Senate "moderates" who is working every day for veterans and our men and women in uniform, while fighting against special interests' control in Washington.

Since she raised it, it's time for Sen. McCaskill to explain why she refuses to protect the conscience rights of military chaplains and the men and women in uniform they have promised to serve.

The challenges for faithful military chaplains continue to mount. A year ago, the Navy issued new "sensitivity training" guidelines that required Navy chaplains to perform same-sex marriages. Last September, the Department of Defense issued two more memos, requiring all military facilities to be available for same-sex weddings and allowing chaplains to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Thanks to leadership from Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Todd Akin, the Navy backed down and rescinded the guidelines, but the threats to the liberty of our military chaplains continue to mount.

And now, anti-marriage interest groups in Washington have convinced Sen. McCaskill not only to seek repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but also to refuse needed conscience protections for military chaplains to preach and teach in support marriage (and our service men and women to listen!) during religious services and counseling sessions.

Only pressure from special interest groups could explain why now for Sen. McCaskill, speaking in favor of same sex relationships in the US Armed Forces is protected speech, but for military chaplains and their congregants to speak in favor of marriage is forbidden and subject to punishment as disruptive to good order and discipline. Chaplains and service men and women can—and have—faced punishment for expressing their views. Faced with this situation, Sen. McCaskill offers no sympathy or support.

We respect the work that Senator McCaskill and all members of the Senate have done to support America's warriors and veterans. But when she has to make a choice between anti-marriage special interests and our warriors and their chaplains, she has sided with the special interests.

That is not moderate, not pro-warrior and pro-veteran and certainly not free of special interest influence.

If you live in the eastern half of the state call Sen. McCaskill's office in St. Louis at 314.367.1364. If you live in the western half of the state call Sen. McCaskill at her office in Kansas City at 816.421.1639. And, to make sure she gets the message, call Sen. McCaskill's office in Washington DC as well at 202.224.6154.

Tell Sen. McCaskill you are watching her votes carefully:

No chaplain or warrior should be penalized for the respectful or prayerful expression of their moral convictions and support for marriage.

We were told explicitly that the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell would NOT lead to a gag order on Military Chaplains and their congregants, but that is exactly what has happened.

If the special interests want to say support for marriage is bad for good order and discipline, they need to prove it. They cannot.

Sen. McCaskill, we are looking to you to stand up against the special interests creating a problem where one does not exist. Tell the special interests to stop handing our Chaplains and warriors the choice between keeping quiet or facing the consequences—or come back to Missouri and explain to us why you will not.

The chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage condemned a federal court ruling that declared a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.

“The federal appeals court in Boston did a grave injustice yesterday by striking down that part of the Defense of Marriage Act that reasonably recognizes the reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” said Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland. “Hopefully, this unjust ruling will be overturned by the US Supreme Court, for the benefit of our nation’s children, and our nation as a whole.”

“Marriage, the union of one man and one woman, is the cornerstone of society,” he added. “It is also the foundation of a just society, as it protects the most vulnerable segment of the population, children. Every child longs for and deserves a mother and a father, and marriage is the only institution that insures that children grow up knowing and being known by their mother and father. The public good demands that this truth of marriage be respected in law and society, not rejected.”

Dear Marriage Supporter,

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is under assault like never before. And Congress may well be its last line of defense.

Please take a moment to thank House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor for standing firm in defense of DOMA and marriage today!

Yesterday morning, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, becoming the first federal appellate court to strike down DOMA. The ruling, coupled with the Ninth Circuit ruling on California’s Proposition 8, sets the stage for a Supreme Court showdown to determine the future of marriage in America next year.

Speaker Boehner and Rep. Cantor deserve a special note of thanks for their courageous defense of DOMA. When President Obama ordered his Justice Department to abdicate their duty to defend DOMA in court (because in his opinion, the law is unconstitutional!), Congress intervened and took over the legal defense of the case. And they hired a superstar, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, to defend our nation’s only federal law protecting marriage.

Please click here to send a message to Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, and also your own congressman, thanking them for the House’s defense of DOMA.

These leaders are under intense pressure to drop their defense of DOMA—they need to hear from you today! Please click here to thank them for defending marriage and urge them to keep up the fight right now!

NOM is actively engaged in defending DOMA and state marriage laws in nearly a dozen cases nationwide. Please help us defend DOMA and marriage wherever it is under attack by making a generous donation to NOM today!

Thank you!

Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)

"Liberal judges on the federal courts are resorting to making up legal standards to redefine marriage. The Supreme Court is going to need to resolve this issue once and for all." —Brian Brown, NOM president—

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today sharply criticized a federal appeals court ruling finding that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, accusing the justices of 'making up' arguments to justify redefining marriage. NOM said the ruling makes it highly likely that the US Supreme Court will step in to determine whether there is a rational basis for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"Liberal federal judges in Massachusetts and California have resorted to making up legal standards in order to justify redefining marriage," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "They realize the legal precedent doesn't allow them to redefine marriage, so they are making up new standards to justify imposing their values on the rest of the nation. It is clear that the US Supreme Court is going to have to resolve this issue once and for all."

In the Massachusetts challenge to DOMA, the First District Court of Appeals acknowledged that DOMA would survive constitutional challenge if they applied the traditional "rational basis" test to the claims. They also acknowledged that they lacked the legal authority to declare sexual orientation to be a "suspect class" and thus impose a heightened standard of scrutiny to a review of DOMA. Instead, they relied on cases totally unrelated to marriage and found they could impose "intensified scrutiny" on DOMA and require that the law be justified "with special clarity."

"It's obvious that the federal courts on both coasts are intent on imposing their liberal, elitist views of marriage on the American people," said Brown. "They dismiss the centuries-old understanding of marriage as a critical social institution that exists for the benefit of couples and their children, and which has served society well for thousands of years. Instead, they want their own politically-correct views to be imposed, and they are making up new law to do so. It's time for the US Supreme Court to step in and establish once and for all that preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not only completely constitutional, it is profoundly in the public good."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Anath Hartmann, ahartmann@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

In the meantime, William Duncan comments at National Review:

This morning a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion holding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The court rejected the implausible argument of the trial court that that principles of federalism prevented Congress from defining terms used in federal law. It also declined the invitation to treat a law that considers the category of “sexual orientation” as equivalent to race (i.e. by employing strict or intermediate scrutiny judicial review). The court very clearly says that under the normal approach the courts would use to determine whether Congress had a “rational basis” in passing a law, DOMA would be upheld.

... So, why is DOMA unconstitutional? The court concludes that there is a new legal standard that has been emerging in the law whereby the U.S. Supreme Court has “intensified scrutiny of purported justifications where minorities are subject to discrepant treatment and have limited the permissible justifications.”

... To recap: Three judges on a federal appeals court purported to apply two amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth and Fourteenth, to Congress’ definition of marriage which forecloses same-sex marriage for federal-law purposes. The panel said the law did not exceed Congress’ power and would be valid under any analysis used between the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and 1973. The panel said, however, that since 1973 the implications of a handful of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have newly invested the federal courts with a power to second-guess Congress’s purposes. In this case, these three judges decided Congress’s rationales for preserving in law what has been the overwhelming norm of marriage (probably unanimous) for millennia just didn’t measure up.

Constitutional scholar and lawyer Robert P. George recently presented an oral argument in one of the cases considering the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which allows each state to determine for itself the definition of marriage. The text of his argument follows this note.

In an unusual move, the Obama Department of Justice declined to defend DOMA, even as Obama has stated (for example, in a May 9 interview with ABC news) that he favors allowing states to decide the definition of marriage for themselves.

The case in which George presented the oral argument (which was in support of a written brief he filed together with Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson) is Cozen O’Connor, P.C. v. Tobits, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Read Prof. George's testimony here.

During a fundraising event in New York City Monday, President Obama for the first time personally called for the repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The law, which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal laws and regulations. It also protects individual states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

“Requiring states like mine — which has one of the strongest marriage-protection laws in the country — to respect and uphold same-sex marriages from a state like Massachusetts would tear down marriage laws in the other 49 states,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan.

Former Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickels, who sponsored the Senate version of DOMA, concurred.

“If you believe in states’ rights, then we need DOMA,” he said.

... Though the Obama administration has done several things to undermine DOMA over the last four years — including not defending it in court when it’s attacked — the president’s address Monday marked the first time he’s publicly called for the law to be repealed or struck down outright.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

President Obama's announcement of support for same-sex marriage last week is already escalating the attacks on DOMA.

The day after President Obama's announcement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid immediately tagged along, announcing his newfound support for the cause du jour.

But he didn't stop there.

As Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid controls the senate calendar...and he told the press this weekend that he wants to see an up-or-down vote on the federal Defense of Marriage Act yet this year.

This could move fast, and there are a lot of Democratic Senators who haven't publicly declared their position on same-sex marriage, but are coming under increased pressure to toe the Obama line and support same-sex marriage. It's Obama's new plan to paint the Republican party as bigots, but he needs Democratic senators to fall in line.

Please take a moment to send a message
to your senators urging them to protect DOMA today!

And the Senate isn't the only place where marriage legislation is ramping up. In the House, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) spearheaded a successful effort to amend the Department of Justice appropriation bill to ensure that no DOJ funds are spent attacking DOMA or any of the state marriage amendments. The amendment passed on a 245-171 vote, with 7 Republicans betraying marriage and their party by voting no.

Congress needs to hear from you!

Click here to send a message thanking Rep. Huelskamp for his leadership in the battle to protect marriage, and to let these 7 Republicans know that voters are counting on them to defend marriage.

The 7 renegade Republicans include Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY), Nan Hayworth (R-NY), Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), Steven LaTourette (R-OH), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), and Lee Terry (R-NE).

There is simply no excuse for anyone in the GOP to back away from marriage. Not only is defending marriage the right thing to do, but it's a winning political issue as well. In a swing state like North Carolina, 61% of the electorate just voted to defend marriage. Republicans can scarcely afford to back away from marriage in this critical election year.

Some are pushing the argument that this election is only about jobs and the economy. But while these are important issues, the future of marriage is no less important.

Mitt Romney and Reince Priebus, head of the Republican National Committee, understand this, and NOM applauds them for quickly and strongly responding to President Obama's announcement with a powerful affirmation of marriage. These men understand that marriage—and pro-marriage voters—are critical to the success of their party. The GOP needs pro-marriage voters to turn out in force this November, and their willingness to publicly defend marriage will make a difference in how marriage supporters invest their donations and volunteer hours this November.

This is a critical issue—and President Obama has made it a centerpiece of the 2012 election campaign. Please take a moment to send a message to your representatives in Washington by clicking this link right now.

Then use the buttons below to forward this message to your friends or share on Facebook or Twitter!

Just hours after President Barack Obama publicly backed gay marriage, the House struck back and passed a measure aimed at reinforcing the Defense of Marriage Act.

With a 245-171 vote, the House voted to stop the Justice Department from using taxpayer funds to actively oppose DOMA — the Clinton-era law defining marriage as between a man and a woman that the Obama administration stopped enforcing in February 2011.

“It is not President Obama’s prerogative to decide which laws matter and which do not, nor his right to challenge constitutional amendments duly passed by the various states,” said the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.). “The Justice Department is duty-bound to enforce DOMA and to not do so is a flagrant disregard for the Constitution and for the rule of law.”

It’s hard to describe how odd it is to hear a Department of Justice lawyer argue in court that a law passed by Congress should be struck down as unconstitutional. It is, after all, the DOJ’s job to defend laws passed by Congress. But as I sat at the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Wednesday listening to the appellate arguments for the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, that’s exactly what I heard for 20 minutes from the DOJ lawyer.

... Ultimately, it’s much better that Paul Clement is defending these cases rather than the DOJ, which only pretended to defend DOMA before deciding to jump ship and join the opposition. But still, you have to wonder how the DOJ’s unprecedented decision to attack the constitutionality of a law that it has a constitutional duty to defend will impact the Department in the long-term. Surely every administration has to defend laws that it would not have supported politically. For example, and speaking of Paul Clement, when he was solicitor general under the Bush administration he defended the infamous McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which is of course a darling of the Left. No doubt President Bush (and perhaps Clement himself), strongly disliked the law. But, by all accounts, Clement defended McCain-Feingold vigorously — and successfully — at the Supreme Court.

... Does DOMA deserve anything less? It was enacted by huge, bipartisan majorities in both houses (85–14 in the Senate, 342–67 in the House), its constitutionality was affirmed by the DOJ, and it was signed by President Clinton. When its constitutionality was later challenged in federal court three times under the Bush administration, the DOJ defended it successfully each time. So why the change? Has the legal precedent since then made defending DOMA a hopeless cause? Hardly. In fact, it’s just the opposite.

[Last] Monday, President Obama admonished the Supreme Court to uphold his health-care law, lest it overturn the legislation in a fit of “judicial activism.” The president told reporters: “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Last year, however, the president took the “extraordinary step” of declaring “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” unconstitutional. In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder sent Speaker ofthe House John Boehner a letter notifying him that the administration would no longer argue in behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. It passed both houses of Congress by wide margins (342–67 in the House and 85–14 in theSenate) — much wider margins than Obamacare got (219–212 in the House and 60–39 votes in the Senate). The problem, of course, is that the administration disagrees with DOMA: The law enshrines traditional marriage in federal law and allows states to ignore same-sex marriages approved by other states.

A federal appeals court panel heard arguments Wednesday on whether to uphold a lower court’s finding that a section of the 1996 law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The case is the first challenge to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, to reach a federal appeals court. In July 2010, Judge Joseph L. Tauro of the United States District Court in Boston sided with the plaintiffs in two separate cases brought by the state attorney general and a gay rights group.

... Mr. Clement — who last week argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of states challenging President Obama’s health care law — told the appeals panel that Congress had a rational basis for defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He said that in 1996, as Hawaii appeared to be the first state moving toward recognizing same-sex marriage, Congress passed the law out of concern that it should have its own definition of marriage.

“Congress could rationally choose to have a uniform definition rather than have it rely upon state law,” Mr. Clement said.

... The three judges on the panel directed most of their questions at Mr. Clement and Mr. Delery. But the questions were measured and did not shed much light on how the court might rule. The judges — Juan Torruella, Michael Boudin and Sandra Lynch, the First Circuit’s chief judge — were appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, the elder George Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) came into play in a civil court case argued this week in a federal court in Pennsylvania.

Ellyn Farley was a lawyer working for a Pennsylvania-based firm before she died in 2010 of cancer. In her will, she designated her elderly mother as the beneficiary of her life insurance and retirement packages. To her lesbian partner, Jennifer Tobits, she left her Jeep, the condominium they shared, and the all the cash in her bank account.

Tobits, however, is suing Farley’s parents for the life insurance and retirement benefits, saying she is entitled to them because she and Farley had a same-sex marriage ceremony performed in Canada in 2006.

DOMA, however, means same-sex marriages performed in other countries are not recognized by federal law, including those laws that apply to retirement plans and other federal benefits. And neither Pennsylvania, where Farley’s law firm is based, nor Illinois, where the women live, have a state law redefining marriage.

...Though it’s essentially a property dispute, the case, which was argued for more than four hours Monday, brought out eight separate legal teams: One for Tobits; one for Farley’s parents; one for the law firm where Farley was employed; one each for the U.S. House of Representatives, the Frederick Douglas Foundation and Princeton University Prof. Robert George, who are defending DOMA; and one each for the Obama administration and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which are challenging it. -- CitizenLink

Apparently it’s getting hard for federal judges in California to show their faces at the professional conventions unless they've struck down the Defense of Marriage Act or at least some marriage law. A judge in the Northern District and twenty of the Central District's bankruptcy judges have all said DOMA is unconstitutional. Not to mention what happened to Proposition 8. Last Wednesday, another San Francisco judge joined the crowd [PDF] holding DOMA unconstitutional in a case where a same-sex couple was trying to get federal employee benefits.

The popularity of this stance is inversely proportional to the strength of its legal reasoning. Wednesday's decision says DOMA creates a sexual orientation classification requiring "heightened scrutiny" (a category the U.S. Supreme Court created for laws that discriminate based on sex). For those interested, the "Heightened Scrutiny Clause" is next to the "Right to Government Funded Healthcare Clause" in the Constitution. Of course, all but one of the federal circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court have used "rational basis" rather than heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation classifications, but peer pressure is strong and in this case appears to have trumped precedent and normal constitutional analysis.

"...In court papers, a group of congressional Republicans defending the federal gay marriage ban revealed they are appealing the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit will become the second federal appeals court to now consider the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 16-year-old law known as DOMA.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, a Republican appointee of former President George W. Bush, concluded the federal law violates equal protection rights because it denies the same benefits available to heterosexual couples.

...The Obama administration has sided with Golinski in the case, arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional. Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, have jumped in to defend the law, filing the notice of appeal on Friday.

...With cases unfolding in several federal courts, many experts predict the issue will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Yesterday, Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California ruled (inGolinski v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management) that the Defense of Marriage Act could not constitutionally be applied to bar a lesbian employee of the Ninth Circuit from receiving federal health-insurance coverage for her same-sex spouse. Judge White granted summary judgment for the plaintiff employee (which means that he concluded that there were no disputed issues of material fact that needed to be resolved at trial). Judge White’s ruling is the first to determine that DOMA is subject to “heightened scrutiny,” rather than more deferential “rational basis” review (though he also opined that DOMA would flunk rational-basis review). Because the Obama administration abandoned its duty to defend DOMA, the federal government’s interest was represented by the U.S. House of Representatives.

... [Judge] White “finds that the unequivocal evidence demonstrates that, although not completely politically powerless, the gay and lesbian community lacks meaningful political power.” (Slip op. at 23.) A supposedly compelling piece of evidence: “Only a handful of states have successfully passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, and only a few more have been required to afford equal marital rights to gay and lesbian individuals through judicial decisions.” (Slip op. at 22.) In short, gays and lesbians lack “meaningful political power” because they haven’t succeeded in broadly redefining marriage, so White will subject DOMA to heightened scrutiny in order to redefine marriage for purposes of federal law. What a farce.

Read Judge White's 43-page decision here (PDF).

The Obama administration did an about-face concerning military policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act on Friday, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Congress the Department of Justice will not stand in the way of any service members’ same-sex spouses suing the military for spousal benefits.

... Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, said Holder’s letter is constitutionally weak.

“It’s all just made up. There’s no part of the Constitution that talks about sexual orientation, the need for the government to give benefits to people,” he said. “This is really troubling because it’s a pattern. We’re not dealing with an administration that adheres to the basic constitutional principle that the government is supposed to do only what it’s given power to do by the Constitution.” -- CitizenLink

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi supports a pro-gay marriage plank in the 2012 Democratic platform, her spokesman Drew Hammill confirms to POLITICO.

... The proposed plank states: "We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples."

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill tells Metro Weekly, "Leader Pelosi supports this language."

Obama currently supports much of the Freedom to Marry plank language -- outside of the marriage equality language itself. He has endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, and opposes "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples." After several requests by Metro Weekly, however, the Obama campaign is yet to provide specific comment on the proposed platform language.

Burns continues:

Platform fights often fall into the sideshow category, but this one has the potential to be different; same-sex marriage is perhaps the most prominent issue on which the president's stated views and the official views of the Democratic Party are out of alignment with the party base and many of its prominent liberal officeholders.

The Democrat base supports redefining marriage? Does that include the majority of African Americans who have voted in favor of marriage in numerous states?

The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Cooper-Harris and her partner, charging that the Department of Veterans Affairs discriminated against them by denying these benefits but granting them to spouses in heterosexual marriages. It also charges the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional because it bans federal agencies from recognizing such same-sex marriages, denying these couples benefits available to couples in heterosexual marriages.

More than that, he didn't even mention his ongoing efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Gay marriage activists want to tell us that gay marriage is popular, and that DOMA is unpopular.

What does the President know that gay marriage activists don't want to admit?

There are plenty of factors that any voter needs to sort out in deciding whom to support for president. For me, one very important factor is which candidate is most likely to nominate excellent Supreme Court justices and lower-court judges and to work tenaciously to get them confirmed. On this score, the candidate in whom I have by far the greatest confidence is Rick Santorum.

I know Rick not only from his work as a senator but from his four-plus years as a colleague of mine at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. (Rick disaffiliated from EPPC just before he launched his presidential campaign.) Rick is deeply committed to the battle against liberal judicial activism, and I’d be delighted to have him making judicial nominations.

The case of a federal employee whose lesbian partner was denied spousal benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was heard in a federal court today — and in an unprecedented twist, the U.S. Department of Justice was fighting against the law of the land

... “Taxpayers should take special note of this case,” said CitizenLink Judicial Analyst Bruce Hausknecht. “After the administration and the DOJ abandoned the defense of DOMA in all pending cases, and the House of Representatives hired Paul Clement to defend the law, the DOJ then filed a brief in this case arguing against Clement’s position — effectively putting the force of the federal government and the tax dollars that fund it — on opposite sides in the same case. What an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars!

“What’s worse, the administration and DOJ took the position that DOMA was unconstitutional after several federal courts had already held it constitutional. That undermines any possibility that the administration and DOJ were operating in good faith by declaring they didn’t feel they could defend the constitutionality of DOMA.”

A provision added to the Senate defense authorization bill would give military chaplains the right to opt out of performing same sex “marriages.”

The amendment was introduced last month by Republican Senator Roger Wicker and approved by a unanimous voice vote.

“Protections for military chaplains should be guaranteed in any policy changes being implemented,” Wicker said, alluding to widespread fears that the conscience rights of military chaplains would be trampled in the wake of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal.

A September memorandum from the Pentagon authorizing military chaplains to officiate at same-sex “weddings” despite the fact that federal law prohibits recognition of same-sex “marriages” had further heightened such fears.

Please help us overcome a looming shortfall!

Increasingly virulent and frequent attacks from the same-sex marriage lobby have depleted our emergency funds, and we need your help!

As 2011 draws to a close, everyone at the National Organization for Marriage is excited about the election year ahead, which we believe will be full of huge victories for traditional marriage.

But unless we raise additional funds quickly, we will be faced with hard decisions about where to begin scaling back our efforts for next year. NOM does not have the resources to accomplish everything we need to do...and with the many new and critical marriage battles upcoming in 2012, this is the exact wrong time for us to have to scale back.

Friend, will you make one emergency year-end gift of $25, $50, $100 or even $1,000 if you can afford it, to NOM right now to help us eliminate our budget shortfall before the end of the year?

Simply click here and make the most generous gift you can right now.

We're in a position to overcome our financial shortcomings because a generous donor has stepped up with a pledge to match every gift between now and the end of the year up to $1 million. Your gift of $50 instantly becomes $100. A gift of $500 is worth $1000 to help protect marriage in 2012!

My staff and I just took a hard look at some recent projections about what the same-sex marriage lobby is planning to spend between now and Election Day, 2012.

And it is clear their entire strategy is to flood America's airwaves, mailboxes, and email in-boxes with vicious attack ads against anyone who stands in their way.

Their goal is gay marriage in all 50 states, and they will do whatever it takes—and spend whatever amount—to make that happen.

We have a plan to fight them at every turn, but without a significant year-end infusion of support, we may have no choice but to scale back our election year programs.

What should I do?

• Should I abandon a state like Maryland, New Jersey or Rhode Island, where marriage is under fire?

• Should I scale back our efforts to repeal same-sex marriage in a state like Iowa, New Hampshire or New York?

• Should I stop our Washington-based lobbying efforts to protect the Defense of Marriage Act (there is new legislation to repeal DOMA) and just hope for the best?

• Should I scale back our plans for the presidential election, letting President Obama off the hook for the lies he will tell on the campaign trail?

Obviously, I don't want to do any of that!

So please—right now—make the most generous year-end gift you can afford to NOM of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more so we can close our budget shortfall.

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S.I know we've asked a lot of you this year, and believe me, your generous help for NOM is greatly appreciated. We've done SO MANY good things together to protect marriage—society's most vital and enduring institution for good—from being destroyed.

But heading into the all-important 2012 election year, NOM is facing difficult decisions, and I am counting on your urgent help.

So please, double the impact of your gift by making one secure online donation $25, $50, $100, $500 or more to the National Organization for Marriage today.

Thank you and God bless you!

A Republican U.S. House member known for holding the most pro-LGBT views in her caucus has endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in his bid for president.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who also serves as chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, announced her support for Romney in a statement on Tuesday that also criticized President Obama.

... In September, she became the first Republican to co-sponsor legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act...

... In a statement, Romney thanked Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers for supporting his campaign.

“I am proud to be working with Ileana, Mario, and Lincoln,” Romney said. “They’re conservative leaders who will help me articulate my vision to make America more prosperous at home and respected throughout the world.”

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Ever since the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, an all-out war over marriage has broken out in Washington.

The Human Rights Campaign — the deep-pocketed anti-marriage lobbying group that is determined to force same-sex marriage on every state in the nation — delivered thousands of anti-DOMA petitions to the Senate, and are urging their same-sex marriage activists to call their elected officials in droves.

Thanks to our generous supporters like you, NOM has taken the fight right back to our opponents, but now is no time to quit.

That's why I am asking you to please take two immediate actions:

First, if you haven't already, contact the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak with your Senator. Demand that your Senators vote against repealing DOMA (Senate Bill 598). Tell them you are paying attention, and you expect them to protect marriage. Then, you can email them here:

Second, make one urgent, generous gift to NOM using our secure credit card donation form.

Both actions are important, because the anti-marriage crusaders are using a slick, well-funded lobbying and publicity campaign to repeal DOMA, which is the only federal statute protecting states against radical lawsuits challenging marriage.

Your generous donations and your grassroots energy are our only way of fighting back!

This is the first time in history that a Senate Committee has passed anti-DOMA legislation. And if they succeed in sending this bill to President Obama's desk, he will sign it.

If that happens, it will be the absolute destruction of marriage in America...in your state, in my state, in all 50 states!

Your two U.S. Senators can put a stop to this madness, so make sure they hear from you, TODAY.

And please make one urgent financial gift to help NOM lead this fight in Washington.

Thank you in advance.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Sincerely,

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

The two hot topics of abortion and same-sex marriage became even hotter when Luntz, as well as representatives from Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage, questioned the candidates whether the issues were a matter for the states or whether AbrahamLincolnwas right in claiming, "States do not have the right to do wrong."

... Paul, however, pressed for constitutional limits on federal power, arguing, "States definitely have the right to be wrong," and that he would be "very cautious about nationalizing things."

... Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, at one point asked the candidates point blank if they would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

"No," Paul answered succinctly.

Leading traditional marriage proponents told CBN News that condemnation is pouring down on their heads.

"It's becoming increasingly clear that the gay rights movement, the gay marriage movement, really does believe you're like a racist if you think marriage is the union of husband and wife," explained Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage. "They want to rip Genesis out of our Bibles."

... DOMA supporters say there's a reason governments have continuously favored and promoted traditional marriage.

"Marriage really matters in itself," Gallagher said. "It's the way we teach the next generation that we need to bring together male and female so that children have a mom and dad."

...Gallagher warned society is playing with fire when it condemns those who insist on one man, one woman marriage.

"And to have the government step in and redefine that view as a form of bigotry has immense consequences for every single human being living in a culture," she said.