Archive for the “Gay Marriage” Category
More than likely by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to release its opinion on the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday morning.
The appeals court is deciding whether to uphold or reverse a federal judge’s 2010 ruling that Proposition 8, which was approved by voters in 2008, was unconstitutional. Regardless of the outcome, the decision is expected to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
The opinion will be posted online at 10 a.m, according to a press release from the court.
Judge Reinhardt and Judge Hawkins will probably vote to affirm Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that Walker did not need to recuse himself (obviously).
The decision will be stayed and the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue in the next term beginning in October 2012.
Comments Off on California Proposition 8 on Gay Marriage to Be Ruled Unconstitutional Tomorrow?
Not really a surprise since the LDS Church (Mormon) of which Mitt is a member was very much involved in California marriage issues with California’s Proposition 8.
But, it does set up a contrast with President Obama (if Romney receives the GOP nomination) who has reversed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the military and who has said to be “evolving” on the Gay Marriage issue – whatever that means.
Watch the gay community pressure Obama to come out in favor of gay marriage, which if he does will ruin him with his African American and Hispanic political bases.
Mitt Romney gains here with the conservative southern GOP base and with GOP Evangelicals who believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Comments Off on President 2012: Mitt Romney Signs National Organization of Marriage Pledge
Sarah Palin as interviewed by David Brody from CBN.com
Now, even I am confused with what Sarah Palin is trying to say about where she stands on homosexual issues
, such as DADT, Gay Marriage, Federal Marriage Amendment, etc.
Certainly, GOProud Advisory Council member Tammy Bruce didn’t help mudding up the waters in early January.
In January, for example, Palin re-tweeted a post by gay conservative talk radio host Tammy Bruce in which she complained about Republican opposition to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” At the time, Bruce commended Palin for what she thought was an endorsement of the repeal effort.
“I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us–thank you Governor,” Bruce wrote on Twitter. But when asked in a subsequent interview on Fox News whether the policy should be repealed, Palin responded: “I don’t think so right now.”
Now, I don’t care if Sarah Palin attends CPAC and organizations who oppose GOProud’s stances on social issues have every right to boycott or stay away. This is their choice. I have never attended because I hate DC in the winter although I will probably attend Western CPAC this year in the fall.
But, Sarah Palin REALLY needs to clear the air.
Her remarks did not sit well with American Principles Project president Frank Cannon. His group was one of the first to call on supporters to boycott this year’s CPAC conference, one of the largest annual gatherings of conservatives in the country, over GOProud’s involvement.
“The concern of conservatives is over the participation of a group whose stated goals run at odds with that of core conservative principles, not over debate over those issues,” said Cannon said in a statement on Monday. “Governor Palin should clarify her comments by letting us know whether in her definition, traditional marriage is a core component of conservatism.”
“Certainly Governor Palin would not be in favor of allowing a socialist group to be a participating organization (i.e. co-sponsor of CPAC) in the name of healthy debate,” he added.
It should be simple for Palin to write a position paper on these issues and post it on her Facebook feed. She has stated during the 2008 campaign for Vice President that she opposed Gay Marriage and supported a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S,. Constitution.
In an interview to air tomorrow on The 700 Club, Christian Broadcasting News senior correspondent David Brody asked Palin, “On constitutional marriage amendment, are, are you for something like that?”
“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman,” Palin said, citing the 1998 initiative that banned gay marriage in her home state.
“I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage,” Palin added, taking a position at odds with McCain, who voted against efforts for a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006. Earlier this month, McCain told the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper, that he continues to oppose such an amendment today because he thinks the definition of marriage should be a state matter and not one for the federal government “as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state’s standard.”
So, Sarah have you changed your position, yes or no?
I can see, that if Palin has, there will be an even more hurried attempt by social conservatives in the GOP to urge Mike Huckabee to run for President – as to oppose Sarah Palin.
4 Comments »
California Prop. 8: Arguments Before Court Go Well Beyond Gay Marriage
"A federal appeals court on Monday began hearing arguments on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Barry P. McDonald, a professor at the Pepperdine School of Law, says the issues being made in court go well beyond the questions of marriage. Here’s an analysis he provided to The Times:
Both parties on this appeal seem to be arguing about much broader issues than this case presents. As the California Supreme Court framed the issue in its decision on the constitutionality of Prop. 8 under the state Constitution, it is whether withholding the official name or designation of "marriage" to same-sex couples is constitutional when state law has given those couples all the rights and obligations of marriage (including parental rights) under its domestic partnership laws. That is a much different question than whether denying the right to marry altogether is constitutional.
It presents the narrower issue of whether there is a legitimate basis for withholding the name "marriage" when all other rights and obligations have been granted. As to this question, at least two answers might be offered. One answer might be that it is clearly irrational and relegates same-sex couples to second-class status. Another answer might be that the people of California have a right to experiment in this area and that it is not an "all or nothing" proposition (no pun intended). In other words, the people want to give same-sex couples all the rights and obligations of marriage but also want to see what effect that will have on society and children raised in same-sex households before they "finalize" this arrangement by making absolutely no distinctions between traditional and same-sex marriage."
Read the entire piece here.
Whatever is decided today, standing to appeal or not, the issue of gay marraige will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Politically, should SCOTUS allow nationwide gay marriage, I would think there would be an attempt to pass a U.S. Constitutional amendment limiting the power to grant gay mariage to the states or prohibing it entirely.
This issue may persist for years in the courts, Congress and the voting booth.
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.
Comments Off on California Proposition 8: Arguments Before Court Go Well Beyond Gay Marriage