"...For the IRS to leak any organization's tax return to its political opponents is an outrageous breach of ethics and, if proven, constitutes a felony. Every organization — liberal and conservative — should shudder at the idea of the IRS playing politics with its confidential tax return information. But the situation here is even more egregious because the head of the HRC was at the time serving as a national co-chair of President Obama's re-election campaign.

The release of NOM's confidential tax return to the Human Rights Campaign is the canary in the coal mine of IRS corruption. Contrary to assertions that the targeting of Tea Party groups was an error in judgment by low-level IRS bureaucrats, the release of NOM's confidential data to a group headed by an Obama campaign co-chair suggests the possibility of complicity at the highest levels of politics and government. This wasn't a low-level error in judgment; it was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent.

That's the reason the IRS has not been very interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. Federal investigators have interviewed NOM officials about the matter, but our efforts to find out what has become of the investigation have been stonewalled at every turn."

 

 

That headline links to this story on Brietbart.com:

One of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign co-chairmen used a leaked document from the IRS to attack GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during the 2012 election, according to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

NOM, a pro-traditional marriage organization, claims the IRS leaked their 2008 confidential financial documents to the rival Human Rights Campaign. Those NOM documents were published on the Huffington Post on March 30, 2012. At that time, Joe Solmonese, a left-wing activist and Huffington Post contributor, was the president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Solmonese was also a 2012 Obama campaign co-chairman.

... “Not only has Romney signed NOM’s radical marriage pledge, now we know he’s one of the donors that NOM has been so desperate to keep secret all these years,” Solmonese added.

Solmonese resigned his position at HRC the next day and took up a position as an Obama campaign co-chair.

• In March 2012, the Puffington Host published a confidential form that the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, had filed with the IRS. The website obtained the document from the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-same-sex-marriage outfit. In a press release issued today, NOM says its analysis of the images "has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service."

A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”

Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.

“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”

The National Organization for Marriage hopes revelations about the IRS unfairly targeting conservative groups can revitalize an investigation into who leaked its donor information last year.

“This is what happens in the Soviet Union,” NOM President Brian Brown told POLITICO on Monday. “This is not what happens in the United States of America.”

In April 2012, the Huffington Post and the Human Rights Campaign posted documents showing GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to NOM in 2008. The anti-gay marriage group immediately cried foul and called for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration — the same investigators who are set to release a report on the IRS targeting later this week — to investigate, accusing IRS employees of leaking the documents.

... Brown said the group wants a congressional hearing to look into the document release, since the group’s attempts to use the Freedom of Information Act to stay updated on the case have been unsuccessful.

“Without a congressional hearing and Congress’ subpoena power, where are we?” Brown asked. “All we’re getting is what [the IRS] wants to say.”

A former rural Iowa court official pleaded guilty Monday to forgery for filing false documents to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple from central Florida, in the first case of its kind in Iowa.

... The resolution drew criticism from Joab Penney of Williston, Fla., who says Van Nice's actions duped him out of $150 and gave him an unending legal headache. Penney said he was outraged when court officials advised him Monday he should hire an attorney to petition to void his marriage license - which he said should have never been issued in the first place.

...The Florida men discovered the fraud months later, when Penney contacted an attorney to seek a divorce. The attorney was suspicious because the men had never been to Iowa and Van Nice mailed the application materials from her home, not the courthouse. The attorney contacted authorities asking for an investigation.Penney said he now wants to marry a woman in Florida, but officials there say that he's legally married to Parker and needs to obtain a divorce first.

...Penney said he has been frustrated by the lack of answers from officials in Iowa and the legal limbo he's in.

"I want to get married here to a woman, and I can't," he said. "It's a major headache. I've changed my lifestyle because of all of this. It has offended me that much."

This week, Wesley Smith of the Weekly Standard reported that California would be considering AB 460, a bill that would mandate group insurance coverage for so-called gay and lesbian "infertility." What in the world does that bizarre phrase mean? It doesn't mean situations in which two members of a lesbian couple are both infertile and incapable of conception using some third party's sperm. It doesn't mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother. It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can't make a baby by having sex with each other.

In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet.

The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered "infertile," which is idiotic, since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity. But nature is irrelevant here. Even though both men and women were, to borrow Lady Gaga's phrase, "born this way," political correctness trumps nature.

"The Boy Scouts' long-standing refusal to admit gay members is deplorable and offensive. But it's also legal. Just because we — or California legislators — might disagree with the discriminatory path the Boy Scouts has taken doesn't mean the organization should be singled out from other nonprofits to lose its tax-exempt status.

... If legislators can go after the Scouts for engaging in legal (though offensive) behavior, what group will they go after next?"

In their recently filed brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, advocates for redefining marriage argued that "gay men and lesbians are a suspect class" and thus need special judicial protection of the "politically powerless."

But making claims to be a minority in need of special judicial protection while simultaneously enjoying the patronage of some of our country's most powerful people, corporations and political entities is disingenuous.

...Unlike African-Americans, who struggled for full recognition and participation in society, homosexual activists and their goals are lionized by practically every powerful cultural institution and center of wealth in America today.

Their political and social war chest -- which includes the backing of Fortune 500 companies and other well-known businesses, politicians and celebrities -- is a far cry from the batons, fire hoses and tear gas that black Americans faced.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide wedding flowers to a same-sex couple.

The complaint was filed in Benton County on Tuesday against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts in Richland. The lawsuit is in response to a March 1 incident where she refused service to longtime customer Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman did not return a call Tuesday night seeking comment. Ferguson had sent a letter on March 28 asking her to comply with the law, but said Stutzman's attorneys responded Monday saying she would challenge any state action to enforce the law. Washington state voters upheld a same-sex marriage law in November, and the law took effect in December. The state's anti-discrimination laws were expanded in 2006 to include sexual orientation.

Ferguson seeks a permanent injunction requiring the store to comply with the state's consumer protection laws and seeks at least $2,000 in fines. (AP)

A “chastened” U.S. Supreme Court won’t make the mistake of granting same-sex marriage rights, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum predicted in an interview today.

“I think you’ll see, hopefully, a chastened Supreme Court is not going to make the same mistake in the (current) cases as they did in Roe v. Wade,” Santorum told The Des Moines Register in a telephone interview. “I’m hopeful the Supreme Court learned its lesson about trying to predict where the American public is going on issues and trying to find rights in the Constitution that sit with the fancy of the day.”

... Asked what he thinks about the two Midwest senators who have recently backed gay marriage, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Santorum said some Republicans splintered off in the late 1960s and early 1970s to support abortion rights when the courts “started mucking around with pro-life statutes at the state level.”

“I’m sure you could go back and read stories, oh, you know, ‘The Republican party’s going to change. This is the future.’ Obviously that didn’t happen,” Santorum said. “I think you’re going to see the same stories written now and it’s not going to happen. The Republican party’s not going to change on this issue. In my opinion it would be suicidal if it did.”

The United States Supreme Court held oral arguments two weeks ago concerning California’s Proposition 8 and, predictably, the media pack have all come to the same conclusion. Their meme is that the Court will decline to rule on the merits as to whether Proposition 8 unconstitutionally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Most base their conclusion on the comment by Justice Anthony Kennedy wondering if the case was properly granted. I believe the media pack has it wrong, failing to appreciate the box that Justice Kennedy likely finds himself in once the Court decided to grant review.

It may very well be that Justice Kennedy would prefer not to decide the Proposition 8 case on the merits. Kennedy is widely viewed as the potential swing vote on the constitutionality of marriage. Despite his lament about having to arbitrate the issue, Justice Kennedy effectively has little choice but to decide whether marriage as it has always been defined somehow violates the constitution.

Once the Court decided to grant review (Certiorari) in the Prop 8 case, Justice Kennedy’s hand was effectively forced. This is true for four key reasons.

[...]

For all these reasons, I believe that Justice Kennedy will ultimately agree with Justice Scalia that they have “already crossed that river” and now must reach the merits of the constitutionality of Proposition 8. So then what?

There was nothing in the oral argument to suggest that anything approaching a majority of the court is prepared to find a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That being the case, I feel very good about the status of Prop 8 when the Court issues their ruling in the coming months. I also suspect that the media pack is likely never to admit their reporting of oral arguments were off target. More than likely they will immediately pivot, saying winning the most important victory for marriage ever achieved doesn’t really matter because – as they’ve been claiming for years — same-sex marriage is somehow “inevitable.” That’s another false meme, but we’ll deal with that one later, with the wind of a Supreme Court victory at our backs.

Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.

In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”

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.

"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:

Vaughn R. Walker, retired judge who overturned California's Proposition 8 in 2010, asked attorneys who will be defending same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court next week if he could attend oral arguments, as revealed Friday morning in a series of emails posted by conservative blogger Patrick Frey aka Pattterico.

The emails indicate a friendly relationship between retired judge Vaughn Walker and Ted Olsen, one of the attorneys who argued to overturn Prop 8 in front of Walker.

At the time, there was controversy over whether Walker, who is gay, ought to have recused himself from the case. A federal court ruled in 2011 that he did not have to do so.

The emails were obtained exclusively by Patterico in an unredacted form. Patterico confirmed that the email addresses appeared to be those of Walker and Ted Olsen's law firm but as of his publication, Patterico had not received replies to his requests for comment or confirmation.

... Patterico--who personally supports same-sex marriage but opposes using the courts as a means to that end--believes that the emails give credence to the belief that Walker was not an impartial jurist for Proposition 8. (Breitbart)

Scholars have filed more than 50 amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging it to uphold California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While the media seems intent on ignoring these briefs and hyping the briefs on the other side, the sheer number and quality of the briefs in defense of laws recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman is impressive.

Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, explains the significance:

During the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term, an average of only 10 amicus briefs per case were filed. And in the historic landmark case of Roe v. Wade, only 26 total amicus briefs were filed.

By comparison a combined total of 58 amicus briefs were filed in support of Prop 8 and DOMA. The pro-marriage arguments are deep, rich, well-reasoned, common sense- and common good-based, and worthy of serious reflection by the Court and any other American interested in the future of our most important social institution.

... 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)

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

"...the Supreme Court's recognition of marriage as a fundamental right has always been grounded on what makes marriage a unique relationship. In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court defined marriage as a "fundamental" right because it is one of the "'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival," a point which is only true because the institution is rooted in the biological complementarity of the sexes, the formal recognition of the unique union through which children are produced. Societies across the globe and throughout history have recognized that marriage is our best way to promote the ideal of children being raised by the two people responsible for creating them—their mother and father. The ban on interracial marriage that was at issue in that case was struck down because race had nothing to do with that fundamental purpose. The same cannot be said for gender.

That basic biological point should also defeat the Equal Protection challenge. Equal Protection requires that individuals who are similarly situated must be treated similarly. It should be obvious, but as long as procreation is an important part of why society lends its weight to the institution of marriage, same sex and opposite sex relationships are simply not similarly situated with respect to that important aspect of marriage. Laws that foster the one relationship because of its unique ability to further the public good serve legitimate, even compelling governmental interests, and should be upheld."

Please click over to the article and VOTE UP Prof. Eastman's constitutional defense of laws protecting marrigae!

CNN has posted a transcript -- including this part about the so-called economic argument for redefining marriage:

[CNN HOST] KEILAR: But the point that I'm getting at is that when we talk about this as a business imperative, let's take a look at what this filing says. It says, recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry is more than a constitutional issue. It is a business imperative. So what do you think about that? Do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? Is it about more than that? Is that not enough?

PETERS: I strongly disagree with it, because, first of all, the top 10 states for growth right now in this country, nine of them have marriage protection amendments. And so, you know, where this argument comes from is the left wing, UCLA Williams Institute, which has been peddling this argument for years, that gay marriage is an economic stimulus. The very states that are currently trying to [...] legalize gay marriage, like New York and California, are not exactly in an economic picture of well-being. So, look, strong states like Indiana are moving towards marriage protection amendments. North Carolina recently passed its marriage protection amendment by 61 percent. The fact of the matter is that protecting marriage protects children and it helps businesses.

KEILAR: But, Thomas, let me ask you this. Because you have businesses now that are saying, it's costing us money. They say and this obviously gets a little complicated, but they say, same-sex couples are required to pay a Federal income tax on health benefits provided to a spouse through an employer-sponsored health insurance plan. Some employers reimburse employees for the extra tax paid. That requires extra time and money. They say it's costing them money. Do you disagree with that?

PETERS: Well, let's look at -- you used the adjective complicated and you're right, it is complicated. But here's one complicating factor that I think is being ignored in this broader debate. You know, the president is arguing in the Supreme Court that gays and lesbians are politically powerless class. And now you've been telling me time and time again that all these corporations support redefining marriage.

So I would actually ask Brian [of the Human Rights Campaign], which is it? Are gays and lesbians actually a politically powerless class or do all these corporations, the vast majority of people support redefining marriage because you can't have it both ways -- I believe the majority of Americans believe in protecting marriage and I believe that gays and lesbians are an incredibly powerful political class that are trying to redefine marriage for all of us.

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.”

An Australian judge threw out a challenge to the nation’s ban on same-sex marriage, ruling it doesn’t amount to gender discrimination.

Neither gay men nor lesbians are allowed to marry under the legislation and thus both sexes are treated equally, Federal Court of Australia Justice Jayne Jagot said in her ruling in Sydney yesterday.

“A man cannot enter into the state of marriage as defined with another man just as a woman cannot enter into the state of marriage with another woman,” the judge wrote. “The redress for these circumstances lies in the political and not the legal arena.”

At another point he says people of faith "don't want gay people sitting on the bus next to them, they'd rather the gays stayed far to the back of the bus, far far away."

Steadman also argues that any person of faith with pro-marriage views should be forced to violate their conscience if they choose to continue operating their business (flower shops, bakeries, restaurants, photographers, banquet halls, etc) after the passage of same-sex civil unions. (He's right about one thing -- this civil unions bill poses a grave threat to religious freedom!)

Here is the transcript -- it is interesting to note how in the first paragraph Steadman claims his bill protects religious liberty (we see this claim made time and time again) and yet it is clear by the end how much he holds religion in contempt (and completely misunderstands it):

"We've written Senate Bill 11 to make sure this separation between religious belief and what's happening here in our state code, in our statutes, in our civil laws are kept separate. For Senate Bill 11 respects religious freedom, this bill does not reach into anyone's church or mosque or synagogue, you can have all the free exercise there that you want. Exercise it as you see fit. But don't let your free exercise run my life. Don't claim religion as a reason the law should discriminate. We have laws against discrimination. Discrimination is banned in employment, and housing, and public accommodations, and so bakeries that serve the public, aren't supposed to look down their noses and one particular class of persons and say "we don't sell cakes to you."  It's troubling, this discrimination. And it's already illegal.

So, what to say to those who claim that religion requires them to discriminate? I'll tell you what I'd say: "Get thee to a nunnery!" And live there then. Go live a monastic life away from modern society, away from people you can't see as equals to yourself. Away from the stream of commerce where you may have to serve them or employ them or rent banquet halls to them. Go some place and be as judgmental as you like. Go inside your church, establish separate water fountains in there if you want, but don't claim that free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains for her citizens. That's not what we're doing here."

Watch the video for yourself:

Please continue to take action and urge your state representatives to oppose same-sex civil unions by opposing SB11!

As National Marriage Week concludes, citizens should consider the role policy plays in rebuilding a culture of marriage in America.

The institution of marriage plays a unique and important role in orienting men and women into a lifelong commitment to one another and any children they might have. Marriage not only affords many personal benefits to married men, women, and their children; it also serves as the building block of a thriving civil society.

Despite the many positive influences of intact married families on men, women, children, and society, the government has too often created the wrong incentives in policy—such as marriage penalties in the tax code and welfare programs. Policymakers should instead promote the many benefits of marriage to individuals and society and eliminate policies that offer incentives not to marry.

Christian registrars will not be able to opt out of performing marriages for gay couples because registrars are deemed to be public officials, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said.

Giving evidence this week to a committee of MPs that are studying the (Marriage Same Sex Couples) Bill for England and Wales, the EHRC declared that although religious institutions are likely to face no legal sanctions for refusing to marry gay couples, public registrars, who perform civil partnerships and marriages on behalf of the state will be expected to comply fully with the new legislation.

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.

Everyone has blind spots. It is philosophy’s ambition to cure these by canceling them out, through dialogue and scrutiny of assumptions. But even academic philosophy has its dogmas. One current example is support for same-sex marriage: To question it is to be anathematized by those occupationally averse to anathemas.

So I was both pleased that Alex Worsnip reviewed my co-authored book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and unsurprised that he misunderstood it. My former classmate in Oxford’s philosophy master’s (B.Phil.) program, Worsnip is sharp and serious about arguments, and consistently blind to arguments of certain sorts.

Orson Scott Card is one of the best-selling science fiction writers alive. He is also a devout Mormon who opposes same-sex marriage. A group of pro-gay comics fans is up in arms over the fact that DC has hired Card to write a new Superman series. The Guardian is making it sound like a huge deal:

... “Superman stands for truth, justice and the American way. Orson Scott Card does not stand for any idea of truth, justice or the American way that I can subscribe to,” said Jono Jarrett of Geeks Out, a gay fan group. “It’s a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice.”

A film of Ender’s Game, co-produced by Card and starring Harrison Ford, is set to be released in November. Jarrett speculated DC was hoping pre-publicity for the movie would drive sales for the comic.

Fortunately, a gay comic writer quoted in the piece understands that blacklisting Card is offensive:

Dale Lazarov, a gay comic writer, said it was counterproductive to attack Card’s appointment: “I’ve known Orson Scott Card is a raging homophobe since the early 90s. I refuse to buy or read his work. But asking that he be denied work because he is a raging homophobe is taking it too far. Asking for workplace discrimination for any reason is counterproductive for those who want to end discrimination on their own behalf.”

True enough. What does Card’s view on homosexuality have to do with Superman? This is about trying to punish Card for thoughtcrime.

A Florida judge has approved the adoption of a 22-month-old baby girl that will list three people as parents on her birth certificate -- a married lesbian couple and a gay man.

The decision ends a two-year paternity fight between the couple and a friend of the women who donated his sperm to father the child but later sought a larger role in the girl's life.

The ruling means the child's birth certificate will include a biological father and both women as parents in an unusual arrangement approved recently by a Miami-Dade Circuit Court judge.

The women, Maria Italiano, 43, and Cher Filippazzo, 38, had made several unsuccessful attempts to become parents using fertility clinics.

They then turned to Italiano's hair dresser, Massimiliano Gerina, and asked if he would provide his sperm for artificial insemination.

More details of the arrangement:

Under the judge's decision, the two women will have sole parental rights, although Gerina will be allowed to visit the child. He will not be expected to provide child support.

"We're trying to do the right thing for Emma," Filippazzo said. "We want Emma to have it all, and we believe by doing it this way, including him in a birthday or Thanksgiving, it'll be a nice addition for her."

"We believe the best interest for Emma is for him to have a role in her life, but not as a parent," she said. "The role is this is mommy's good friend who helped your moms have you because they wanted you so badly."

A Supreme Court of Canada decision that upheld Quebec's laws which provide rights to married couples that do not apply to couples merely living together has been applauded by pro-family organizations as a recognition of the unique and distinctive role that true marriage plays in society.

In what has become known as the Eric and Lola case, pseudonyms designed to protect the couple’s three children, the court ruled that the Quebec law that excludes cohabiting couples from receiving spousal support in the event of relationship breakdown is constitutional and does not discriminate against couples who choose to live together without the benefit of marriage.

In a close 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin wrote, "Those who choose to marry choose the protections, but also the responsibilities, associated with that status. Those who choose not to marry avoid these state-imposed responsibilities and protections."

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada (IMFC) says that the decision accurately reflects the social science research which shows marriage to be substantively different from living common law.

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.

"...DOMA proponents see the president’s decision to roll in a provision for bi-national same-sex couples as misguided.

“If the president is putting immigration as his highest priority, why would he muddy the waters with a proposal that violates current federal law?” says John Eastman, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “I guarantee there’ll be a fight if he’s trying to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I think it demonstrates he’s not serious about immigration reform.”

Am immigration reform blueprint released by the “Gang of Eight,” as the group of Republican and Democratic senators have come to be known, detailed major shifts on immigration but did not refer to measures for same-sex couples."

"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.”

Today the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Quebec can exclude cohabiting couples from receiving spousal support in the event of relationship breakdown.

The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada applauds this decision because it accurately reflects the fact that social science research shows marriage to be substantively different from living common law.

“There is great consensus from social scientists, no matter their political stripe, that marriage is different from living together,” says IMFC Manager of Research Andrea Mrozek. “Unfortunately, the statistical reality is that people living together break up more readily – even if they do eventually wed. They are more likely to have multiple partners. Their children face more problems – higher rates of school dropout, more drug use and an earlier age of sexual initiation. And single parents – typically mothers – are more likely to be poor. These are some of the harsh statistical realities of living together versus getting married, and it is wise to acknowledge this difference,” says Mrozek.

Marriage protects against poverty and remains the most stable manner in which to raise children. Some researchers have even identified that a new class division is emerging along married versus unmarried lines. This is the message of author Kay Hymowitz’s book, Marriage and Caste in America.

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.”

It has been 1,515 days since November 4, 2008. That's the day California voters approved Proposition 8, the ballot initiative designed to end the Golden State's heralded experiment with same-sex marriage. During that time, Prop 8 has been forcefully challenged as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution, has been the subject of a one-sided bench trial, has twice been declaredunconstitutional, and has been accepted for review by the justices of the United States Supreme Court. And during all that time it has never really enjoyed a coherent defense. Until now.

On Tuesday, the first substantive brief was filed in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 case now under review by the Supreme Court. The document was filed by lawyers representing a group of citizens who took over the case after California's elected officials refused to continue to defend the measure. I'm still not convinced that their arguments are going to persuade Justice Anthony Kennedy to save Prop 8. And without his vote the measure is doomed. But these are about the best legal arguments that can be offered in support of this dubious measure, and they are laid out more impressively here than I have yet seen while covering this case.

Here is the link to the brief. For our purposes, the most important passage -- an example of strong legal writing -- comes at pages 20 through 26, and I suggest you take the time to read all seven pages. The gist of this text is likely to animate the Prop 8 case from here on in, through oral argument in late March to the decision in late June. And the rhetoric contained here surely poses a new challenge to the initiative's famous foes, lawyers David Boies and Ted Olson, who until now have largely won the legal war in court over Prop 8 as well as the public relations war beyond it.

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In a tremendous victory for NOM and our allies in the movement to preserve marriage, last December the United States Supreme Court granted the request of the proponents of California's Proposition 8 and agreed to review the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down California's marriage amendment. NOM was the biggest contributor to getting Proposition 8 on the ballot, and has directly contributed over $400,000 to its legal defense. The Court's justices will hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.

Today, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade — the Supreme Court decision that changed our nation so profoundly — reminds us of how truly important it is to stay engaged in and informed about this current, critical case, which has the potential to impact the future of our nation just as profoundly as that fateful 1973 decision — for better, or for worse!

Therefore, to help you follow this case with the most up-to-date news and commentary, NOM is re-launching a completely revamped and improved www.Prop8Case.com!

This site chronicles the history of the Prop 8 case; features blog posts and twitter feeds with the most up-to-date news about the legal proceedings; and gives you the opportunity to subscribe for updates and stay informed.

Supporter, this case represents an incredible opportunity to win an enormous, historic victory for marriage. From the start of litigation over 4 years ago, NOM has been working tirelessly with the incredible legal team representing ProtectMarriage.com to defend Prop 8 and to assure that marriage and the rights of voters in California and throughout our nation receive the best defense possible.

All of our efforts come down to March 26th, when the justices hear oral arguments, and then the period until the end of June when the justices are writing their decision.

We won't let up until we win.

Please take a moment to check out the new website and stay informed about what may be the Roe v. Wade of marriage. And please stand with us throughout this case with your prayers and support, so that the legacy of the 2013 Supreme Court does not follow the same path as its predecessor from 1973.

Lastly, please help us spread the word. The more eyes on the court, the better!

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.”

A bill proposed by the UK government allows gay marriages, but explicitly forbids the Church of England and the Church in Wales from blessing same-sex couples. British Muslims have criticized the proposition, demanding a similar exception.

The specific naming of the two churches in the bill drew criticism from other religious factions opposed to same-sex marriage. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which has more than 500 affiliated mosques, charities and schools, said Tuesday it was "appalled" by the proposed legislation.

MCB secretary-general Farooq Murad said he was seeking an urgent meeting with UK Culture Secretary Maria Miller to express the level of intense opposition to the bill among Muslims. "No one in their right mind should accept such a discriminatory law," Murad said. "It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions."

"...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.

Notaries public in Maine who officiate weddings of opposite-sex couples and refuse to marry same-sex couples could be subject to a claim of discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act, according to the Maine secretary of state’s office.

The notice sent to municipal clerks this week effectively means an all or none approach for notaries public when it comes to performing weddings.

...The email clarified for notaries public whether they would be required to perform same-sex weddings when the new law allowing gay couples to marry goes into effect Dec. 29. The Bangor Daily News was provided a copy of the email by the Bangor city clerk’s office.

“If you are a Notary Public who performs marriages and you refuse to perform a marriage for a couple due to a person’s race, color, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, creed, age, ancestry or national origin, you may be subject to a claim of discrimination.’’ Beaudoin wrote. “The new law authorizing same-sex marriage does not provide any exemption from liability for Maine Notaries who refuse to perform marriages for same-sex couples.”

There are about 25,000 notaries public licensed by the Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions, a division of the secretary of state’s office, Barbara Redmond, who works in the bureau, said Wednesday in a phone interview.

... After the referendum allowing same-sex couples to marry was passed by voters on Nov. 6, a few notaries called the secretary of state’s office with questions about how the new law applied to them, Redmond said. A handful resigned.

"...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."

"...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."

Eastern Michigan University has agreed to settle an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit filed on behalf of Julea Ward, a graduate student whom the university expelled from a counseling program for abiding by her religious beliefs. As a result, a federal district court issued an agreed-upon order of dismissal Monday. 

Even though counseling referrals are a common and accepted professional practice, the university expelled Ward when she sought to avoid violating her religious beliefs by referring a potential client to another counselor. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in her favor.

“Public universities shouldn’t force students to violate their religious beliefs to get a degree. The 6th Circuit rightly understood this and ruled appropriately, so the university has done the right thing in settling this case,” said Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco, who argued before the court in October of last year. “When Julea sought to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor--a common, professional practice that is endorsed by her profession’s code of ethics--EMU denied the referral. Then it attacked and questioned her religious beliefs, ultimately expelling her from the program. We are pleased that Julea and her constitutionally protected rights have been vindicated.”

Visit our Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance page to learn more about citizens who have experienced discrimination and harassment for their pro-marriage views.

"...Matthew Frank pointed out in these pages that recent Federal Court rulings scoff at the claim that LGBT persons are politically powerless.

... And now comes a new study from the financial services giant Prudential. The study looked at 1,401 LGBT persons aged 25-68 from “urban, suburban, and rural communities throughout the 50 states in August 2012.”

Rather than living in extreme poverty, or poverty of any kind, the study shows that gay individuals and couples are significantly better off than heterosexuals. They are more likely to be employed. They make significant more money. They have much higher levels of disposable income and have more in savings.

... A lawyer in Washington DC recently said the LGBT folks are the most powerful minority group our country has ever seen. They are lauded in the media and in the popular culture. They are better off by any financial measure. And their cause is championed by what Father Neuhaus called the “prestige media.” They are honored and promoted not just at Ivy League schools but in just about every college setting in the United States. And those who oppose them? They are vilified, driven from their jobs and from the public square.

Let us hope that the Supreme Court, which has taken up this issue, looks carefully at the real and privileged position of the homosexual community in the United States. We should all be so discriminated against."

"...same-sex marriage advocates claim that gays and lesbians are politically powerless, unable to make headway in the normal channels of democratic decision-making at the polls and in legislatures, thus needing the aid of the judiciary. As Judge Jones noted in the Nevada case, this claim is refuted by recent history. The president of the United States opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and favors same-sex marriage. Legislatures in some states have established same-sex marriage, and in other states, civil unions. Moreover, Jones noted, the people of four states went to the polls in November to decide this question—and we know what the result was.

...notwithstanding their November victories, they are still leery of democracy in much of the country, even in blue New Jersey, where they have rejected a referendum idea floated by Governor Chris Christie.

But Judge Kay and Judge Jones are quite right. It is ludicrous to call gays and lesbians an oppressed and powerless minority in the United States at the end of 2012. This fact should weigh heavily in the Supreme Court’s deliberations." -- First Things "On the Square" blog

"...The lessons the gay litigators learned from the racial and gender civil rights movements led them to consider the federal courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular with extreme caution. When superlawyers David Boies and Ted Olson brought the head-on challenge to California’s antigay Prop 8 in 2009, they broke with this convention, and were heavily criticized for it. The ACLU’s Matt Coles called the suit a long shot and the marriage director for Lambda Legal said it was “risky and premature.”

... Justice Kennedy has delivered an almost unbroken series of conservative votes in the last several years, swinging almost not at all between the factions. It pays to remember that even after a series of cautious moves led to victory, when the women’s movement asked for  inclusion of pregnancy in disability benefits –  they lost decisively. The closest case to the Boies-Olson litigation in the women’s movement – Roe v. Wade-- triggered a four decade backlash. Once before the gay movement overplayed its hand ever so slightly with the Court and got a terrible decision upholding the criminal sodomy laws. Gays almost won the first sodomy case; the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was only 5-4, so it was hardly a foolhardy risk. And yet, it does make you shiver."

"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.

"...The Prop. 8 case argues something much broader, however: It claims there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, and that any attempt to ban same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment. The Ninth Circuit's ruling was written so narrowly that if the Supreme Court had decided not to take the case, then the Ninth Circuit's decision would have affirmed the rights of same-sex couples in California alone. But if SCOTUS were to affirm the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage, the ruling could well apply to any such law nationwide.

... When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's liberal justices in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), he showed a willingness to split from his conservative colleagues on cases of political and historical import. And Justice Anthony Kennedy authored opinions in Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas, the landmark cases that paved the way for subsequent advances in LGBT rights. Still, both men are conservative by nature, and up until November no state had recognized same-sex marriage rights by popular vote. Roberts and Kennedy could well prove sympathetic to conservative arguments that finding a right of same-sex couples to be free of discrimination amounts to "forcing" same-sex marriage on everyone else." -- Adam Serwer at Mother Jones

"...If the court does take up Perry, be afraid, be very afraid. Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry’s heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution? 

... The good news: The general opinion is that the Supreme Court will decline to hear Perry because, as Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog wrote in an email, that would mean “the court does not have to answer…any issue about a right to gay marriage, and I think the court will be happy to be spared that obligation.”

Of course, the Supreme Court did choose to hear Perry (Prop 8).

"...Judge Jones has, in fact, just ruled to uphold not merely "the law," but the Nevada Constitution as recently amended by Nevada voters.

The U.S. Constitution - under which the action is brought - instructs that the several states must retain authority to establish different sets of laws best suited to their residents, whereupon Americans may "vote with their feet" by relocating to jurisdictions with legal codes that better suit them. Thomas Jefferson specifically warned that if the states ever became subsidiary jurisdictions of a uniform central authority, like the "Departments" of France, America would degenerate into a Bonapartist tyranny.

If planks of a constitution enacted by voters can be tossed out willy-nilly by a court determined to enforce what it thinks the law ought to be, then the people have a right to ask whether we have passed from a republic with government powers limited by being divided among the three branches and the several levels, into a dictatorship of the unelected bench.

If the state constitution is to be changed - even if we lament the slowness of the process - it should be left to the legislative branch and the wisdom of the people at the polls."

“Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization. Marriage expresses the truth that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team looks forward to advocating before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the people’s right to preserve this fundamental building block of civilization.”

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!

A group that opposes gay marriage asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to take up a challenge to Nevada's ban on same sex unions.

The Coalition for the Protection of Marriage said the case crystalizes the fundamental question of whether the legal definition of marriage should be changed from a man and a woman to the union of any two people.

The coalition filed documents seeking what is known as a writ of certiorari that asks the Supreme Court to take the case before it can be considered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

... "The fundamental marriage issue is whether ... the legal definition of marriage (should) be changed from the union of a man and a woman to the union of any two persons," the coalition filing said.

In its 127-page filing, the coalition called the Nevada case the clearest among several gay marriage cases the high court could consider because it hinges on that "fundamental" question and isn't encumbered by side issues.

"This case has developed most comprehensively and thoroughly the societal interests justifying preservation of marriage's man-woman meaning," the document said.

Sure enough, as we warned, citizens in Maryland who disagree with redefined marriage are now being forced out of the public square and are NOT protected under the redefining marriage law passed in Maryland:

An Annapolis wedding vendor plans to ask Maryland's General Assembly to give his company and others like him the right to refuse services to gay couples on religious grounds.

In November, Marylanders voted to uphold a law, passed by the General Assembly during the 2012 legislative session, that legalized same-sex marriages starting Jan. 1.

"The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don’t have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don’t count for anything," Discover Annapolis Tours owner Matt Grubbs wrote in an email.

The email was provided to Patch by Chris Belkot on Nov. 29. He received it from Grubbs after Belkot inquired about using the company's wedding services this spring.

Grubbs confirmed the email, and said his attorney advised him to shut down the wedding part of his business immediately because he could be sued for refusing services to same-sex couples.

"We’re a Christian-owned company, and we just can't support gay marriages," Grubbs said. "We're not trying to make a statement. We're not trying to make a point. We're just trying to be faithful Christians."

The decision will cost him approximately $50,000 a year in revenue. -- Annapolis Patch

Lawyers for a group defending Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon to decide the most basic constitutional question in that controversy: must a state allow gays and lesbians to get married?  That is an issue that no other pending case at the Court has raised.  The new case involves a Nevada federal judge’s ruling that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and the new petition seeks to defend that even while asking the Justices to step in.

“After twenty years of intense judicial and extra-judicial engagement with the question of the public meaning of marriage, the Nation is now looking to this Court for the federal constitutional answer to the fundamental marriage issue,” the petition said.

The case is Coalition for the Protection of Marriage v. Beverly Sevcik; it is a plea for the Court to hear the case directly from the federal district court in Reno without waiting for a ruling on the case by the Ninth Circuit Court.  The petition and appendix with the district judge’s ruling can be found here.

... Judge Jones’s decision has now been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court by the same-sex couples involved in the case (pending in that court on docket 12-17668).  But the defenders of the state ban asked the Supreme Court to grant review of the case now, before it moves forward in the Circuit Court.   The Supreme Court has the authority to lift up a case like that from a federal district court, if the case already has been appealed to a Circuit Court.  In fact, the Court is also being asked to do that in some of the other pending same-sex marriage cases.

... In asking the Supreme Court to add to the current consideration of the controversy, the defenders of Nevada’s traditional marriage amendment said that if the Court confined its review to any of the other pending cases, it would make a decision “without resolution of the fundamental marriage issue.”   This is the way the petition framed that issue: “Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires Nevada to change its definition of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of two persons.”

Pressing that question, the petition said it “may be the most nationally important and consequential issue to come before this Court in many years.  Of the ‘marriage’ cases now before this Court, this case is optimal for resolving the fundamental issue for several reasons.  The case is the only one that cannot be resolved without answering the fundamental issue.”

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."

William Duncan, writing in NRO, explains what happened:

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.

"... U.S. District Chief Judge Robert Jones ruled that Nevada has what he calls "a legitimate state interest" in maintaining the traditional institution of marriage between one man and one woman.

He says the state has the right to prohibit recognition of marriages from other states."

Maggie Gallagher comments at NRO's The Corner:

The District court in Nevada just upheld that state’s marriage amendment, using the wins for gay marriage this November at the ballot box as evidence that gay people are not a protected class (because they are not politically powerless), and upholding Baker v. Nelson as controlling on the equal-protection claim.

The case now goes to the Ninth Circuit.

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

"...A society where marriage is divorced from its procreative purpose within a stable union is a society that neuters its ability to prevent predatory men from impregnating women and abandoning them and to ensure that men take responsibility for their offspring. And it denies the child an incontrovertible social benefit: a present mother and father.

In such an alternative society—where marriage is divorced from procreation—the government steps in to look after children and relationships. And why not? If same-sex advocates view government validation of relationships as the means to achieve their social legitimacy, why not also look to government to solve the social failings of relationships?

Ultimately, the argument for same-sex marriage attempts to appeal to the personal promises we husbands and wives make to each other. But it only uses this course of reasoning because it cannot appeal to society’s reasons for establishing marriage laws in the first place. Yet when debating whether or not to license something, we cannot let our emotions determine the extent of government power. Government power that lacks a logical limiting principle—as the argument for same-sex marriage does—is inconsistent with limited government. To support limited government is to support traditional marriage." -- First Things

Chad Griffen, president of the $40million-per-year Human Rights Campaign, fresh from four state vote victories and the re-election of a pro-gay marriage president, claims the political power to demand more appointments of lesbian and gay people to the highest political offices in the land:

"...The Human Rights Campaign's Chad Griffin, president of the largest LGBT equality-rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the US, is calling for inclusion in the cabinet and other positions.

'We made historic progress with President Obama in terms of our openly LGBT appointments across the board,' Griffin tellsBuzzFeed. 'We now have the opportunity, and I hope this president and this White House will seize the opportunity to have the first openly LGBT Cabinet secretary, the first openly LGBT G-8 ambassador, and across the board with administrative appointments and judges as well." -- GayStarNews

Here is one example that would suggest that gay and lesbian people are not politically powerless:

Rep. Tina Kotek of Oregon will become the first out lesbian to lead a state legislative chamber after being elected House Speaker by her Democratic colleagues Thursday.

The Associated Press reports on the vote, which needs to be formally ratified in January. Kotek told the AP that she knows her success as an openly lesbian official has inspired other LGBT people.

"We all look for people out there who look like us," she said. "I have had emails and text messages from people who are very excited."

Openly gay leaders will control legislative chambers in five states, according to the AP, up from two before the election last week. -- The Advocate

"My heart sank when I learned that a movement to legalize recognition of same-sex marriage is gaining steam. I voted against the amendment, feeling that we should not deny state protections to same-sex couples, especially financial and health protections. At the same time, using the term "marriage" is so emotionally laden that it begs to be fought long and hard by those whose view is "traditional." Can we not just agree to provide legal protections to same-sex couples without calling it marriage? I believe there is enough support within the state that this could be accomplished without the amount of bloodshed we saw this last election. What do you think, Minnesota? Can we all agree to civil unions, and let the emotions have a chance to heal?"

BREAKING:

"A Harris County judge has reached a decision in an unusual custody battle involving a surrogate and two Houston men. The judge has determined the woman who gave birth is, in fact, a mother."

For background, see Jennifer Lahl and I writing about the case in HuffPost, "Are Women Easy Bake Ovens?”

"...it is not clear which side benefited more from those developments [the four marriage referendums] at the Supreme Court.

Supporters of traditional marriage, even as they registered disappointment, said the results showed that the question could be resolved democratically.

“It bolsters our case,” said Brian S. Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage. “It’s very difficult to say you need a federal resolution of this question if states are resolving it for themselves.”

Adam Umhoefer, the executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group behind a California case seeking to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, expressed mixed feelings about the developments. They were, he said, the right outcomes in the wrong forums.

“Fundamental constitutional rights like marriage,” he said, “should never be subjected to a popular vote.”

1) Wiggins made and executed law from the bench. Judges can’t do that. Article 12.Section 1 of the Iowa Constitutions says, “The general assembly shall pass ALL laws…”

2) Wiggins is the worst rated Supreme Court Judge in 50-year retention history. He received only a 63% retention recommendation from his own peers.

3) Wiggins broke the Iowa Judicial Code of Conduct. He violated Iowa Code when he did his own research. Iowa Code Chapter 51:2.9 says “A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently” but on pg. 54 of the Varnum opinion, they noted the evidence was “confirmed by our own independent research.”

4) It’s “We the People”, not we the courts.

"...Shelton reaches her conclusion that marriage supporters “are essentially advocating for the Church and the State to be one and the same. They are fighting for bigger government and cronyism in marriage, although they claim to want more individual freedom and personal liberties elsewhere. The inherent contradiction is astounding.”

But there is no contradiction here once one considers the actual arguments advanced by Shelton’s opponents and left unaddressed by Shelton herself.

In our article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “What is Marriage?” my co-authors and I have argued philosophically that marriage by its very nature is a union of a man and a woman. (Later this month Encounter Books will release an expanded and enhanced version of the argument.)

At the heart of the argument is an understanding that natural (not supernatural, sacramental, or religious) marriage is a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Prior to any governmental diktats, marriage has its own essential structure and norms and serves its own ends. Our marriage law should reflect the truth about what marriage is."

It’s certainly not a sure thing, but the fate of one David Wiggins could play a key role in determining, on November 6, who becomes the leader of the free world.

David Wiggins is a justice on the Iowa Supreme Court, and this fall he’s up for a retention vote. A controversial decision about gay marriage has given rise to a sizeable grassroots movement among Hawkeye social conservatives who want to push him out. Their get-out-the-vote efforts could mobilize otherwise unmotivated conservative voters and tip the balance in Iowa. It’s a state where Mitt Romney was not expected to win, but he now trails by just two points in the Real Clear Politicsaverage.

This is happening because of the Iowa Supreme Court’s controversial 2009 decision on the state’s restricting its marriage licenses to straight coouples. The seven justices on the court ruled unanimously that the statute denied same-sex couples equal protection and didn’t serve a compelling state interest. But the kicker for conservatives, according to former Iowa GOP political director Craig Robinson, came when the court also stipulated that same-sex couples had now won the right to marry. The unconstitutionality of one statute doesn’t imply that its inverse is law, Robinson notes, but that was the result of the court’s ruling. Opponents of the ruling argue that in legislating from the bench, the justices overstepped their constitutional bounds and deserve to be thrown out.

Recently our youth group, ages 7 to 17, felt called to take a stand for marriage, as traditionally defined by all previous generations. We decided that for the next four weekends we would hold signs along Payne Road in Scarborough, asking Mainers for their support.

We consulted the police and followed their safety recommendations. As we stood along the sidewalk, a tremendous number of people enthusiastically showed their support. But many of the opposition were extremely hostile.

On one occasion, a middle-aged man with children in the back seat of his SUV deliberately drove up onto the sidewalk. He was dangerously near the children as he continued accelerating, plowing over 15 of our marriage signs and covering a span of more than 100 feet. The little ones were very scared.

He pulled off only to avoid hitting a telephone pole, and we saw him laughing as he sped away. The police chased after him and when confronted, the man claimed that he was "distracted." Thankfully, a nearby store captured the entire crime on video.

On another occasion, a car drove by and the passenger leaned out the window, exposing his private parts. I was embarrassed by this lack of decency.

We children endured people calling us names, throwing things at us and hundreds upon hundreds of people sticking up their middle fingers and screaming X-rated profanities. And they call us hateful people?

In the name of "tolerance," I have been insulted, disrespected and bullied, simply because of my beliefs: that marriage is between a man and a woman and that children need both a mother and a father. In spite of all this, I am determined to continue exercising my First Amendment rights and standing up for the true meaning of marriage. -- Portland Press Herald