The case involves a lesbian couple that wants to adopt three children, but is barred from it under both a state constitutional amendment and a state statute. As Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog explains, the constitutional amendment, "enacted in 2004, provides that '[t]o secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.'" The state statute limits adoption to single people or married couples. Thus since they are not considered married under state law, the couple cannot adopt.

Continue Reading...

"President Obama directed federal departments to ensure the decision and its implication for federal benefits for same-sex legally married couples are implemented swiftly and smoothly," Napolitano said in a statement on Monday.  "To that end, effective immediately, I have directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to review immigration visa petitions filed on behalf of a same-sex spouse in the same manner as those filed on behalf of an opposite-sex spouse.”

Continue Reading...

Monday was the first chance for all but a handful of California's same-sex couples to wed since 2008, when about 18,000 couples got hitched in a brief window before a voter-approved ban.

Last week, the high court ruled that backers of Proposition 8 didn't have standing to defend the measure in court, and late Friday the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a stay, allowing some weddings that afternoon.

The Los Angeles County clerk-recorder's office logged 600 online marriage license applications over the weekend and posted extended hours Monday to deal with the crush.

Continue Reading...

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit lifted its injunction against same-sex marriages, which had been put in place pending a Supreme Court ruling on the legal challenge to Proposition 8. Last week, the Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits, as the supporters of the measure, which banned same-sex marriage in California, did not have standing to appeal a District Court ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling, meaning that the only barrier to same-sex marriage in the state was the injunction.

Since the Ninth Circuit's decision, same-sex couples have already begun marrying in the state. But supporters of Proposition 8 argued that the injunction could not be lifted until the Supreme Court decision was finalized, which occurs 25 days after a decision is handed down.

Kennedy had dissented from the majority opinion on the ruling, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Continue Reading...

“We are manufacturing the right to redefine marriage,” Eastman said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” He added: “That’s judicial tyranny, not the kind of system we have.”

Watch, via Mediaite:

Continue Reading...

Reuters reports:

In their application asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit and reinstate the gay marriage ban, opponents argued the appeals court had jumped the gun in lifting its stay.

The Arizona-based group Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the 9th Circuit lacked authority to act when it did, and that it violated the terms of its own stay requiring the ruling remain in place "until final disposition by the Supreme Court."

Continue Reading...

Continue Reading...

Lambda Legal is planning to file a motion, in a case currently before the New Jersey Superior Court, that argues that current New Jersey law is at odds with the state Supreme Court's 2006 holding that gay couples are required to get the same benefits as straight couples.

From The Washington Post:

In response to the 2006 ruling, the legislature passed a bill establishing civil unions in the state. Since civil unions were adopted in the state, marriage advocates have argued that they are not equal to marriage. The DOMA ruling bolsters that claim. While couples in civil unions may get some federal benefits after the ruling — it’s a legal gray area — they will not get the automatic benefits enjoyed by spouses in states where gay marriage is legal.

Continue Reading...

WHYY-FM reports that Sims, who is the state's first openly gay lawmaker, was prevented from speaking about the decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act via a procedural move. "I wasn't planning on chastising anybody. I wasn't planning on discussing how far we have to come in Pennsylvania or that we really have no civil rights in Pennsylvania," Sims said. "It was really just going to limit my comments to how important the cases were."

Continue Reading...

The host of "The 700 Club" was speaking to Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. “I have no idea,” Sekulow replied. “I think what Justice Kennedy did, if you look at a series of cases that he’s been involved in, he’s taken the view that sexual orientation is a special class.”

Robertson later continued that the decision to overturn DOMA could pave the way for a Sodom and Gomorrah-type situation. “Look what happened to Sodom. After a while, there wasn’t any other way, and God did something pretty drastic.”

Watch, via MediaMatters:

Continue Reading...

“It’s just another example of judicial supremacy rather than having the government run by the people we actually vote for,” he said on NJ 101.5 FM, the Star-Ledger reports. “I thought it was a bad decision.”

He continued: “I thought that Justice (Anthony) Kennedy’s opinion in many respects was incredibly insulting to those people, 340-some members of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bill Clinton. They basically said the only reason to pass that bill was to demean people.”

Christie, who last year vetoed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New Jersey, said Wednesday that he would do so again if a similar bill reached his desk.

Continue Reading...

From Politico, Huelskamp said that he will file the amendment sometime this week:

“My response to this will be later this week to file a federal marriage amendment,” he said at a Conversation with Conservatives lunch on Wednesday morning.

When asked if leadership is likely to support efforts to restore DOMA, Huelskamp said he was encouraged by the statement Speaker John Boehner released after the ruling.

“I give tremendous credit to the Speaker of the House,” Huelskamp said.

Boehner had put out a statement earlier on Wednesday, saying: "While I am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical that we protect our system of checks and balances. A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.”

Continue Reading...

First there's DOMA: The Court held that Section 3 of the law, which defines "marriage" and "spouse" as only referring to unions between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. This means that couples in states that legally recognize same-sex marriages - and only in those states -  are now considered married under federal law, and can receive those benefits that federal law confers upon married couples. This amounts to over 1,000 benefits, all of which are listed at the United States General Accounting Office, and includes Social Security, death and other tax benefits (which were those benefits at issue in the case before the Court, called United States vs. Windsor).

Continue Reading...

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, holding that the law is unconstitutional under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy writes in the majority opinion that the law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of receiving federal benefits, "is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."

"The Constitution’s guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group. In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, '[d]iscriminations of an unusual character' especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive under these principles," Kennedy writes.

Continue Reading...

The announcement came as a shock to some, but the end of Exodus had been a long time coming, as Chambers told Salon. "In my gut I knew that would actually come to fruition at some point during my leadership," he said of the decision. "We've modified as much as we can modify; this organization still holds a lot of negative connotations and a lot of bad memories for people, and we needed to just simply close the doors."

Continue Reading...

As Raw Story first pointed out, over 200 conservative activists released a letter under the name "Freedom Federation," writing that "Like many other concerned Americans, we await the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States on two cases which open up the possibility that the institution of marriage will be further undermined by a judicial opinion. We pledge to stand together to defend marriage as what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children."

The letter continues that "Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. The Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage," and "As Christians united together in defense of marriage, we pray that this will not happen. But, make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross."

Continue Reading...

“I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government,” she wrote on her web site. "When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values. I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values: it keeps politicians out of the most private and personal aspects of peoples’ lives – while also encouraging more families to form and more adults to make a lifetime commitment to one another.”

Murkowski acknowledged that her decision might be unpopular among other Republicans. “There may be some that when they hear the position that I hold that are deeply disappointed. There may be some who embrace the decision that I have made,” she told KTUU on Wednesday. “I recognize that it is an area that as a Republican I will be criticized for.”

Continue Reading...

"There has been movement across the board," Dave Kanevsky, the research director for the Republican polling outfit American Viewpoint, which was involved in the survey, told the Los Angeles Times. "Every group has moved" in favor of same-sex marriage, he said.

The Times reports that one of the most significant shifts has been among older voters:

Continue Reading...

Compton’s ex-husband, Joshua, who had once been charged with stalking her (he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge) had asked for enforcement of a "morality clause" in the couple’s original divorce decree, which bars overnight guests who aren’t related by blood or marriage while the children are there. Of course, as a lesbian couple in Texas, they can’t be married. Never mind the fact that their children “are all happy and well adjusted,” according to Price.

Faced with the choice between Compton's children and sharing a home, the couple has said they will reluctantly follow the order, though they believe it to be unconstitutional.

Continue Reading...

"It looks like you're proposing," she joked.

"Would you like me to?" he asked.

She laughed. "Yeah."

"Do you want a ring?"

"Yeah."

He went into the other room and came back with a diamond. He slid the family heirloom onto her finger before she even got up from the toilet. They're now happily married and it's a cherished story that they share "more frequently than is appropriate," she says.

After I wrote about my own non-traditional proposal last week, people started sharing their own stories, like the toilet engagement above, with me. I couldn't get enough, so I started asking around for more. I was delighted to find that my feminism -- and basic critical thinking skills -- hadn't entirely inured me to romance. These stories of pragmatism, awkwardness and foiled plans were more enchanting than any viral YouTube proposal -- at least according to my warped sensibility. The traditional male proposal may still hold strong, as I wrote last week, but that doesn't mean that people aren't going against the ring-in-the-champagne grain -- or at least embracing the sweetness of imperfection.

Continue Reading...