Published May 14, 2013
Associated Press
ST. PAUL, Minn. – Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton has signed a bill that legalizes gay marriage, making the state the 12th to do so.
Cheering spectators filled the south lawn of the state Capitol for the outdoor ceremony, with rainbow and American flags fluttering in a sweltering breeze.
Dayton thanked legislators for political courage before signing the bill.
His signature came just a day after the state Senate approved it.
May 13, 2013: People fill the Minnesota State Capitol as they waited for word that the Senate had passed the gay marriage bill.AP
With marriages to be available for Minnesota's gay couples starting Aug. 1, Duluth residents Gary Anderson and Gary Boelhower are getting ready to do something that seemed impossible when they started dating three years ago: plan a wedding.
"The plan is to do it in August, definitely," Boelhower said Monday, shortly after Minnesota's Legislature took its final vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has pledged to sign the bill, and is scheduled to do so at 5 p.m. Tuesday on the front steps of the Capitol in St. Paul.
"It means the ability to have our love and commitment recognized publicly," Boelhower said. "To me, that's what it's most about."
Minnesota is set to become the first state in Midwest to legalize gay marriage by legislative vote, and the third nationwide in just 10 days, joining Rhode Island and Delaware. Thousands of gay marriage supporters thronging the Capitol erupted into deafening cheers after the Senate's 37-30 vote; the House passed it last week on a 75-59 vote.
"Members, God made gays," Sen. Ron Latz, a Democrat from a suburb of Minneapolis, said during the Senate's emotional four-hour debate. "And God made gays capable of loving other people. So who are we to quarrel with God's intentions?"
The gay marriage issue shifted quickly in Minnesota, with the Legislature's vote coming a little more than six months after voters defeated an amendment that would have banned gay marriage in the state constitution. The groups that led the campaign against the amendment swiftly turned to pushing for legalizing same-sex marriage, an effort aided when Democrats captured full control of state government in November.
Only one Republican senator, Branden Petersen of suburban Andover, voted for the bill. Three Democrats from rural districts voted against it.
Republican opponents said the bill alters a centuries-old understanding of marriage as a societal building block that benefits children.
"Forcing others to give you your rights will never end well," said Sen. Dan Hall, a Republican and a pastor. "It won't give you the recognition you desire."
Hall said gay marriage supporters have told him he's on the wrong side of history but, he said, "the truth is I'm more concerned about being on the right side of eternity."
But supporters, too, cited religious faith and relationships with gay family members and friends as shaping their vote for the bill. Many spoke of the benefits of their own marriages.
"I could never and I would never deny the kind of recognition and all the other positive things I get out of my marriage with my husband, to anyone else," said Sen. Vicki Jensen, a Democrat from the southern Minnesota city of Owatonna.
With passage looking inevitable Monday, vocal and visual opposition was muted. Don Lee, of Eagan, placed a tombstone on the Capitol lawn with the words "R.I.P. MARRIAGE 2013."
"The legislation being passed today is the end of marriage as we know it in Minnesota," Lee said. "It's a transformation from a forward-looking sacrificial institution to one focused on adult desires."
Supporters and opponents were close to evenly matched during the House debate, but Monday was dominated by gay marriage backers.
They taped blue and orange hearts on the Capitol steps, creating a path into the building for lawmakers with the signature colors of their movement. In the rotunda, demonstrators sang songs including "Over the Rainbow," "Going to the Chapel" and "The Star-Spangled Banner."
St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman ordered the Wabasha Street Bridge near downtown festooned in rainbow-striped gay pride flags, and temporarily renamed it the "Freedom to Marry Bridge." He also proclaimed it "Freedom to Marry Week."
Minnesota's most famous opponent of gay marriage also weighed in. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, an ardent supporter of banning gay marriage when she served in the state Senate, released a statement expressing disappointment in a vote she said "denies religious liberty to people who believe in traditional marriage."
Jessica Flatequal and Maria Bevacqua, a lesbian couple from Mankato who have been together for a decade, were jubilant after the vote, as supporters spilled out of the front of the Capitol.
"We're excited to become equal citizens under the law," said Bevacqua, a professor at Minnesota State University-Mankato. Asked whether they would get married, both women laughed.
"Well, neither of us proposed today," Flatequal said. "But now that's going to be part of the discussion. It's weird, actually."
Published May 07, 2013
Associated Press
DOVER, Del. – Delaware will become the 11th state to allow same-sex marriages.
A divided state Senate gave final legislative approval Tuesday to a bill authorizing same-sex marriage after hearing about three hours of debate. The vote sends the bill to Democratic Gov. Jack Markell, who has promised to sign it.
The bill doesn't give same-sex couples any more rights or benefits under Delaware law than they currently have with civil unions. But supporters say same-sex couples deserve the dignity and respect of married couples. They also hope the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a federal law barring married gay couples from receiving federal benefits.
Opponents, including many Delaware religious leaders, argue same-sex marriage redefines and destroys a centuries-old institution that is a building block of society.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Rhode Island on Thursday became the nation's 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, as a 16-year effort to extend marriage rights in this heavily Catholic state ended with the triumphant cheers of hundreds of gays, lesbians, their families and friends.
Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed the bill into law on the Statehouse steps Thursday evening following a final 56-15 vote in the House. The first weddings will take place Aug. 1, when the law takes effect.
"It's a day we knew would come, but it seemed so far away for so many years," said Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, who is gay and was elected to the House after years as a gay marriage advocate. "So many people worked so hard for this day."
The day was bittersweet for Deborah Tevyaw, whose wife, state corrections officer Pat Baker, succumbed to lung cancer two years ago. Months before she died, Baker, relying on an oxygen tank, angrily told lawmakers that it was unfair that Tevyaw wasn't considered her wife in Rhode Island despite their marriage in Massachusetts.
"I'm ecstatic, but sad she's not here to see this," Tevyaw said. "I'm sure she's watching, but she's not here next to me. Before she died, she told me, `I started this, and now I'm leaving it in your hands.' We worked hard for this. There were petitions, door knocking, phone calls. I think people decided, `just let people be happy."'
Once consigned to the political fringe, gay marriage advocates succeeded this year thanks to a sprawling lobbying effort that included support from organized labor leaders, religious clergy, leaders including Chafee and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and hundreds of volunteers. Their efforts overcame the opposition of the Roman Catholic church and lawmakers including Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who voted no but allowed the issue to come to a vote anyway.
"Political power doesn't always start at the Statehouse," said Dawn Euer, deputy campaign director at Rhode Islanders United for Marriage.
Supporters framed the issue as one of civil rights, arguing in daylong legislative hearings that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and protections given to opposite-sex married couples. The Catholic Church was the most significant opponent, with Bishop Thomas Tobin urging lawmakers to defeat what he called an "immoral and unnecessary" change to traditional marriage law.
The Rhode Island legislation states that religious institutions may set their own rules regarding who is eligible to marry within the faith and specifies that no religious leader is obligated to officiate at any marriage ceremony and no religious group is required to provide facilities or services related to a gay marriage.
While ministers already cannot be forced to marry anyone, the exemption helped assuage concerns from some lawmakers that clergy could face lawsuits for abiding by their religious convictions.
Under the new law, civil unions will no longer be available to same-sex couples as of July 1, though the state would continue to recognize existing civil unions. Lawmakers approved civil unions two years ago, though few couples have sought them.
Delaware could be the next state to approve gay marriage. Legislation legalizing same-sex marriage narrowly passed the Delaware House on Tuesday and now awaits a vote in the state Senate.
Published April 04, 2013
Associated Press
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. – U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson has joined the growing number of senators to endorse gay marriage.
The Florida Democrat wrote Thursday in a Tampa Bay Times column, "The civil rights and responsibilities for one must pertain to all. Thus, to discriminate against one class and not another is wrong for me."
Nelson pledged to add his name to the petition of senators asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional.
The moderate Nelson had previously supported civil unions for gay people but said he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.
With Nelson's shift, only six Senate Democrats remain opposed to gay marriage. A handful of Republicans, including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, have also changed their stance.
A majority of Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism Wednesday about the legitimacy of a federal provision that prevents married gay couples from receiving a range of federal benefits, raising questions about whether the Defense of Marriage Act will stand.
The court concluded arguments early Wednesday afternoon on the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The hearing was the second in back-to-back gay marriage cases before the court this week, both of which have attracted intense public interest.
In the two-hour hearing Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote in close cases, joined the four more liberal justices in raising questions about the provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that is being challenged.
Kennedy said the law appears to intrude on the power of states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. Other justices said the law creates what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called two classes of marriage, full marriage and "skim-milk marriage."
Click to listen to the oral arguments.
The motivation behind the 1996 federal law, passed by large majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, was questioned repeatedly by Justice Elena Kagan. She read from a House of Representatives report explaining that the reason for the law was "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." The quote produced an audible reaction in the courtroom.
Paul Clement, representing the House Republican leadership in defending the law, said the more relevant question is whether Congress had "any rational basis for the statute." He supplied one, the federal government's interest in treating same-sex couples the same no matter where they live.
Clement said the government does not want military families "to resist transfer from West Point to Fort Sill because they're going to lose their benefits." The U.S. Military Academy at West Point is in New York, where same-sex marriage is legal, and Fort Sill is in Oklahoma, where gay marriages are not legal.
The law affects a range of benefits available to married couples, including tax breaks, survivor benefits and health insurance for spouses of federal employees.
It also is possible the court could dismiss the case for procedural reasons, though that prospect seemed less likely than it did in Tuesday's argument over gay marriage in California.
Marital status is relevant in more than 1,100 federal laws that include estate taxes, Social Security survivor benefits and health benefits for federal employees. Lawsuits around the country have led four federal district courts and two appeals courts to strike down the law's Section 3, which defines marriage.
In 2011, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.
The justices chose for their review the case of Edith Windsor, 83, of New York, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.
Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 in Canada after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.
There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero.
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Like the Proposition 8 case from California, Windsor's lawsuit could falter on a legal technicality without a definitive ruling from the high court.
The House Republicans, the Obama administration and a lawyer appointed by the court were to spend part of the hearing discussing whether the House Republican leadership can defend the law in court because the administration decided not to, and whether the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case because it changed its position and now argues that the provision is unconstitutional.
If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get her refund because she won in the lower courts. But there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court, and it would remain on the books.
On Tuesday, the justices weighed a fundamental issue: Does the Constitution require that people be allowed to marry whom they choose, regardless of either partner's gender? That case involved California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.
If the justices choose to rule broadly, they could overturn Prop 8 and in doing so invalidate every other restriction on gay marriage in the country.
But the justices suggested Tuesday they could decide the case without issuing a ruling that ripples through all 50 states.
Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts that the case was properly before them. Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.
The justices' statement spanned the gamut. Chief Justice John Roberts said it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word "marriage" by including same-sex couples.
Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Proposition 8 argued that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.
Decisions in both cases are expected by June.
Americans as a whole are divided on the issue. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it.
That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it.
Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Kim Roberts, left, and her partner Lisa Mayes of Benicia, Calif. participate in a marriage equality rally on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at the Solano County Government Center in Fairfield before the Supreme Court hears arguments concerning the Defense of Marriage Act after it heard arguments contesting the constitutionality of the California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday. (AP Photo/The Reporter, Joel Rosenbaum)MANDATORY CREDIT
With the Supreme Court now hearing cases centering on the legality of a federal ban on gay marriage and California’s ban on gay marriage, the real way our nation should address marriage rights is to get government out of the marriage business, altogether.
It never made sense to have state or federal government intrude into personal affairs by giving it the power to sanction and legitimize the loving commitment of one individual to another. That is a matter for the adults involved, who should share their intentions and vows in a ceremony with family, friends and any religious institutions they choose (or not), then sign any financial documents they see as being appropriate and, perhaps, exchange rings. End of story.
If two adults are mature enough to get married, they should be mature enough to envision and codify how they will deal with their finances, should that marriage end.
The government’s only interest should be in enforcing child support and fair child custody and visitation for each parent, in the event of a dissolution of the (government-free) marital bond. Making certain that children do not descend into poverty, and spouses are not left without parental rights, would then be the only proper function of the state related to marriage—both triggered only when marriages end. This would be no different than the state’s current role in enforcing child support, custody and visitation in non-married couples.
The legal sanctioning of, or refusal to sanction, any loving union between adults is inherently laden with cultural values. And if it is determined that love and commitment should be the sole driving force behind state and federal marriage laws, then it is utterly and completely illogical to deny five people who love one another the right to marry as a group. Heterosexual government-sanctioned marriage leads logically to homosexual government-sanctioned marriage, which leads logically to polygamy. Anyone who suggests otherwise is suggesting that government should play favorites and show prejudice.
If two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry. No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love, and the three-parent structure would offer the children of this marriage a mother and two fathers—role models of both genders, with 50 percent more earning capacity than a two-parent family and many advantages, in terms of built-in child care.
Government should not play favorites or show prejudice. And the proper next step for government to take is a major step out of our personal lives. This can be done by neither showing a preference for or against marriages, nor deciding who should marry whom. Instead, that should be left to people and their loved ones and their religious institutions, if any.
All state, federal and corporate (as in, health insurance) preferences shown married couples, as opposed to those who are not married, are inherently prejudicial. There ought to be no distinction between the rules for filing taxes, whether one is married, or not. Every individual should file taxes under the same set of rules. There ought to be no government rubber stamp via government-sanctioned marriage of whether someone has the right to act on behalf of another individual who is too ill to make decisions. That should all be codified in a prenuptial agreement or other legal documents. There ought to be no automatic inheritance of assets by spouses, which should be codified in a will.
The gay marriage debate is a sideshow in the bigger debate we must have: Why was government so intrusive as to be involved in marriage, in the first place, and shouldn’t government divorce itself from the concept of sanctioning marriage, altogether?
Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.
Chief Justice John Roberts.AP
Today, the Supreme Court considered a case about whether voters in a state can pass a law that arguably violates the Constitution of the United States of America. The case about to decide the fate of California’s Prop 8 is tangled up with the details of legal procedure and constitutional interpretation to the point where some analysts speculate the Court might dodge a ruling altogether on technical grounds.
But the details sort of don’t matter --- what is really on trial this week is the future of equal treatment for gay Americans. And the fact is, the tide is flowing forcefully in the direction of fairness and equality. The Supreme Court will either ride the wave or try to block it or dodge it, but ultimately it doesn’t really matter. The tide has irrevocably turned.
The fundamental equality of gay Americans is lapping against every shore of America from the Bible Belt to the Republican National Committee. A leader in the Southern Baptist Convention recently reported that young people within the conservative church think opposing same-sex marriage “feels intolerant.” The RNC “autopsy” report advised softening the party’s stance on gay rights issues and prominent Republicans including Sen. Rob Portman have announced their support for marriage equality. Republicans are finally catching up with mainstream public opinion, which has been quickly evolving to now-majority support for gay marriage. And among the observers inside the Court today was Jean Podrasky, the lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice, a conservative, gave Podrasky one of his private tickets.
It’s worth noting that even the lawyers defending Prop 8 aren’t arguing against the morality of gay marriage but merely trying to say the matter should be left to the states. Anti-gay bias and bigotry is quickly falling out of fashion.
Of course, the Supreme Court should not be swayed by personal sentiment or popular opinion. A founding principle of our nation is that fundamental rights should never be subject to popular vote --- whether the right to equal treatment under the 14th Amendment or the right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment. The judiciary exists to hold politicians and the people accountable to a higher standard, to ensure that majority rule doesn’t trample on minority rights. It is the job of the Supreme Court to hold federal, state and local governments accountable to our founding doctrines and the rule of law --- including the idea that government cannot pass a law discriminating against a group of people without a “legitimate purpose”.
More than 1,138 rights and benefits at the federal level accrue to couples based on marriage, from inheriting assets tax free to accessing spousal visas for immigration purposes. Gay couples don’t want to change the marriages of straight couples in any way nor force religious institutions to perform weddings against their conscience. This is simply about getting the same legal rights as other families. In fact, the California’s Prop 8 isn’t really about marriage any more than anti-sodomy statutes were about sex. The point of both was to enshrine second-class status for gay Americans. And that is not a “legitimate purpose” for government discrimination.
It is unclear from today’s hearings how the Court might rule on Prop 8. It remains entirely possible that the Court might dodge the substantive question or rule on narrow grounds that only affect the State of California and not the rest of the country. Whatever it does, the rights of hundreds of thousands of families like mine will be profoundly affected by whatever the Supreme Court rules on two marriage equality cases it is hearing this week. Without question, what the Court rules will make a difference in the short-term legal and political realities faced by same-sex couples.
But when Martin Luther King spoke about justice rolling “down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream,” he evoked the long arc of history that ultimately bends toward equal treatment and fairness for all. The Supreme Court may hurry the pace of justice or slow it down or dodge it altogether, but the sanctioning of anti-gay bias and legalized discrimination against gay families will someday soon be nothing more than an ugly relic of the past.
When Chief Justice Roberts was being confirmed for the Court, his lesbian cousin, a liberal, enthusiastically backed his appointment. Why? “He is family,” she explained, articulating the shared values that we as a nation must continue to strive for as well.
Sally Kohn is a Fox News contributor and writer. You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sallykohn.
The gay marriage debate lands before the Supreme Court Tuesday morning, as the justices weigh the first of two cases that could have sweeping implications for the states.
Tuesday's historic arguments will center on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages. Spectators have been waiting in line since Thursday for the chance at being in the room while the two sides try to sway the court.
Lawyers representing one lesbian and one gay couple from California will try to persuade the nine Supreme Court justices Tuesday to strike down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages and to declare that gay couples can marry nationwide.
Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Prop 8 will argue that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.
The case has the potential to be monumental, as the justices could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages.
Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states.
The case before the high court came together four years ago when the two couples agreed to be the named plaintiffs and become the public faces of a well-funded, high-profile effort to challenge Proposition 8 in the courts.
The fight began in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses. Six months later, the state Supreme Court invalidated the same-sex unions. Less than four years later, however, the same state court overturned California's prohibition on same-sex unions.
Then, in the same election that put President Obama in the White House in 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, undoing the court ruling and defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The ballot measure halted same-sex unions in California. Roughly 18,000 couples were wed in the nearly five months that same-sex marriage was legal and those marriages remain valid in California.
The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.
They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson's onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.
On Wednesday the court will consider a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits, as part of a 1996 measure called the Defense of Marriage Act.
The arguments come at a time of changing views on the issue. Support for gay marriage is becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue is causing a sharp divide among Republicans.
Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments.
The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it.
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state."
Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide.
Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman."
However Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument."
"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday." "There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage."
Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course.
President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit.
But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.
The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.
"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary."
Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it.
That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it.
Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling.
Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The United States Supreme Court has concluded oral arguments on California's Proposition 8.
In this morning's briefing for RedState.com, I noted that gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible. The gay rights movement must drive from the town square those who disagree and must punish and silence those who refuse to surrender their belief that marriage is between a man and woman.
Many people howled in protest over email this morning, denying the incompatibility. The irony is that many howling against me will not be on the side of the church and Christian when the fight comes.
But the fight is already here.
- Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state’s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer.
- In Lexington, Ky., a T-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The T-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other T-shirt printers, along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington’s anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation. The city’s power-drunk human rights commission said the shop will be "required by law to participate in the investigation.”
"We have subpoena power and have the backing of the law,” Raymond Sexton, the executive director of the Human Rights Commission told Fox News.“We are a law enforcement agency and people have to comply.”
Leftist groups are trying to get the company evicted from their premises. The city now has school districts freezing their business with the privately owned company. Meanwhile, the owner of the company tried to defend his faith and decision in an op-ed in the paper.
- A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.
- A same-sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room.
- A bed and breakfast in Alton privately owned by a Christian couple was sued when they would not host a same-sex civil union ceremony.
- Owners of a small, privately owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued.
- An employee of Allstate insurance wrote an essay online disagreeing with same-sex marriage and was reportedly fired from his job as a result.
- Catholic Charities was barred from assisting in adoptions in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and Illinois and excluded from future contracts because it declined to consider same sex couples. Sorry kids, but the agenda impresarios need to make an example.
There are even more examples. The fight has only just begun. Might as well stop trying to convince yourself it hasn't.
Erick Erickson is a Fox News contributor and editor of RedState.com. Follow him on Twitter @EWErickson.
The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level.
The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans.
The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.
It is the California case, though, that could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states.
Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it.
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state."
Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman."
But Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument."
"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday."
"There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage."
Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit.
But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. One of the lead lawyers arguing against Prop 8, Ted Olson, also is a prominent conservative who was solicitor general under George W. Bush. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.
The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.
"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary."
Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it.
Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling.
Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia.
But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May.
The case being considered Tuesday concerns the constitutional ban on gay marriage that California voters adopted in 2008. One key question before the court is whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down Prop 8, without making any sweeping pronouncements. The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.
The other issue the high court will take on involves the central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.
Supreme Court rulings are expected in June.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
March 23, 2013: Those hoping to get a seat for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage line up early outside the court in Washington.AP
The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level.
The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans.
The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.
It is the California case, though, that could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states.
Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it.
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state."
Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman."
But Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument."
"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday."
"There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage."
Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit.
But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. One of the lead lawyers arguing against Prop 8, Ted Olson, also is a prominent conservative who was solicitor general under George W. Bush. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.
The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.
"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary."
Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it.
Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling.
Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia.
But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May.
The case being considered Tuesday concerns the constitutional ban on gay marriage that California voters adopted in 2008. One key question before the court is whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down Prop 8, without making any sweeping pronouncements. The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.
The other issue the high court will take on involves the central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.
Supreme Court rulings are expected in June.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – Former Sen. Pete Domenici disclosed that he fathered a secret child in the 1970s with the 24-year-old daughter of one of his Senate colleagues -- a startling revelation for a politician with a reputation as an upstanding family man.
Domenici and Michelle Laxalt sent statements to the Albuquerque Journal that announced the relationship for the first time and identified their son as Nevada attorney Adam Paul Laxalt. They said they decided to go public with their decades-old secret because they believed someone was about to release the information in an attempt to smear Domenici.
"I deeply regret this and am very sorry for my behavior," Domenici, 80, said in his statement. "I hope New Mexicans will view that my accomplishments for my beloved state outweigh my personal transgression."
Domenici was the longest-serving senator in New Mexico history when he retired in 2010 after six terms. He was known for his unflagging support of the state's national laboratories and military installations, and he became a power broker for his work on the federal budget and energy policy.
Domenici voted for the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton in 1998 after his affair with Monica Lewinsky, but his floor statement focused on the fact that Clinton had lied under oath, noting that the trial "has never been about the President's private sex acts, as tawdry as they have been."
But in the same speech, he cited the value of "truthfulness" and how it's the first pillar of good character.
Reached at his home in Washington on Wednesday, Domenici said he had nothing more to say. Domenici and his wife have been married more than 50 years and have eight children.
The scandal has all the elements of an inside-the-Beltway soap opera.
Michelle Laxalt is the daughter of former U.S. Sen. Paul Laxalt, himself a significant political figure in the 1970s and `80s as he served as Nevada governor and two terms in the Senate alongside Domenici.
Michelle Laxalt became a prominent lobbyist, Republican activist and television commentator after the affair. She said in the statement that she chose to raise her son as a single parent and that the two agreed that it would be a private matter.
"One night's mistake led to pregnancy more than 30 years ago," she said.
Laxalt's prominence in national politics occasionally put her in an odd position of publicly discussing the integrity of the man who is the father of her child.
In 2008, Domenici was reprimanded by the Senate ethics committee for his involvement in a scandal over the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
At the time, Laxalt defended Domenici's integrity on CNN, calling him an honorable man who was supporting "no fewer than eight children."
The website for Adam Laxalt's law firm said he is a former U.S. Navy officer and lawyer who served in Iraq. He also worked for then-Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and as a special assistant to an undersecretary of state, according to the website.
Domenici is the latest in a long line of politicians who were forced to reveal secret children, from one-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards to former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Just last week, U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee acknowledged that he's the father of a 24-year-old woman after the two were seen communicating on Twitter during the State of the Union address.
Earlier this month, the daughter of the late U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond and his family's black maid died in South Carolina. Essie Mae Washington-Williams didn't come forward and identify him as her father until after his death at age 100 in 2003.
Domenici said he was sorry that he caused hurt and disappointment for his wife and other family members. He said he disclosed the situation to his family several months ago.
"I have apologized as best as I can to my wife, and we have worked together to strengthen our relationship," Domenici said.
Domenici told the Journal his son participated in the drafting of his statement, but it was unclear if the two had a prior relationship.
The Laxalts did not immediately respond to emails and phone calls seeking comment.
In New Mexico, political leaders said they were surprised, but they doubted the revelation would negatively impact the Domenici legacy.
"It is going to make his legacy a little bit more colorful because he is not exactly the kind of guy you expect that from," said Maurilio Vigil, a political science professor emeritus at Highlands University in Las Vegas, N.M.
"It is surprising because he was always an upstanding type of fellow, a family man, and that was his image."
Edward Lujan, former chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, said he had heard rumors about the child years ago, but "I didn't pay much attention. I didn't care. Those kinds of things honestly are between the families and has nothing to do with how he did his job."
"I don't think there was anything hypocritical about anything," Lujan said. "I admire him as much today as I did yesterday and the day before."
Republican Gov. Susana Martinez said her "thoughts and prayers are with the family.
"It's a difficult time," she said, "but Sen. Domenici's work is a very separate and distinct issue. I think he's done great things for the state and I don't think anyone will ever forget the hard work and all that he brought to New Mexico."
Others weren't as strong in their defense of Domenici and sizing up how the revelations would affect this legacy.
"I'll leave that for historians and other people to judge," said former Gov. Toney Anaya, a Democrat who ran a close race against Domenici in 1978.
