AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

Obama considers intervening in gay marriage case

posted 3/7/2013 8:14:57 PM |
0 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
tagged: politics, marriage, news, straddle
  StraddleMyNose

I think Obama should stay the hell out of it. The voters in California have spoken.

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage -- a move that could have a far-reaching impact on same-sex couples across the country.

The administration has one week to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the justices on the California ban, known as Proposition 8. While an administration brief alone is unlikely to sway the high court, the government's opinion does carry weight with the justices.

Proposition 8 opponents believe the president signaled his intention to file a brief when he declared in last month's inaugural address that gays and lesbians must be "treated like anyone else under the law." An administration official said Obama was not foreshadowing any legal action, though the administration was considering filing a brief.

The Proposition 8 ballot initiative was approved by California voters in 2008 and overturned a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. Twenty-nine other states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, while nine states and Washington, D.C., recognize same-sex marriage.

An administration brief alone is unlikely to sway the Justices but the federal government's opinion does carry weight with the court.

A final decision on whether to file a brief has not been made, a senior administration official said. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is consulting with the White House on the matter, said the official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to address the private deliberations publicly.

While the Justice Department would formally make the filing, the president himself is almost certain to make the ultimate decision on whether to file.

"I have to make sure that I'm not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we're not a party to the case," Obama said Wednesday in interview with San Francisco's KGO-TV.

He said his personal view is that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples and said his administration would do whatever it could to promote that principle.

Obama has a complicated history on gay marriage. As a presidential candidate in 2008, he opposed the California ban but didn't endorse gay marriage. As he ran for re-election last year, he announced his personal support for same-sex marriage but said marriage was an issue that should be decided by the states, not the federal government.

To some, Obama's broad call for gay rights during his Jan. 21 inaugural address was a signal that he now sees a federal role in defining marriage.

"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law," Obama said during his remarks on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. "For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

But administration officials said Obama -- a former constitutional law professor -- was not foreshadowing any legal action in his remarks and was simply restating his personal belief in the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

Seeking to capitalize on growing public support for gay marriage, advocates are calling on the administration to file a broad brief not only asking the court to declare California's ban unconstitutional but also urging the Justices to make all state bans illegal.

"If they do make that argument and the court accepts it, the ramifications could be very sweeping," said Richard Socarides, an attorney and advocate.

The administration could also file a narrower brief that would ask the court to issue a decision applying only to California. Or it could decide not to weigh in on the case at all.

The Supreme Court, which will take up the case on March 26, has several options for its eventual ruling. Among them:

-- The justices could uphold the state ban on gay marriage and say citizens of a state have the right to make that call.

-- The court could endorse an appeals court ruling that would make same-sex marriage legal in California but apply only to that state.

-- The court could issue a broader ruling that would apply to California and seven other states: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. In those states, gay couples can join in civil unions that have all the benefits of marriage but cannot be married.

-- The broadest ruling would be one that says the Constitution forbids states from banning same-sex unions.

For weeks, supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 have been lobbying the administration to side with them.

Continued in comments...

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by StraddleMyNose:
Chavez about to join a who’s who under glass
What are your favorite inspiring presidential quotes?
Shipwreck
Tastes like chicken
Bronze Statue
Weird lizard hair
The BIBLE
What's the worst Christmas movie you have watched?
The best sandwich maker
Rapist!
Bill would ban buying of alcohol after a DUI
In South Dakota, teachers could now carry firearms
Obama considers intervening in gay marriage case
Who was/is your favorite WWE or the former WWF wrestler?
WWE Says William Moody, Aka Paul Bearer, Has Died
Do you believe in ghosts and/or space aliens?
Paul mounts Senate filibuster of Obama's CIA nominee over drone concerns
Valerie Harper, TV icon, diagnosed with terminal brain cancer
What classic or average movie would YOU remake?
Hugo Chavez dead!
Who watched the premier of All-Star Celebrity Apprentice last night?
Rodman's trip to North Korea
1st Photo of Alien Planet Forming Snapped by Telescope
'Gallon Smashing' Prank Videos a Hit but Raise Legal Concerns
Bonnie Franklin dead at 69


Comments:

post a comment!

StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 8:15PM  
Last month, Theodore Olson and David Boies, lawyers arguing for gay marriage, met with Verrilli and other government lawyers to urge the administration to file a brief in the case. A few days later, Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, met with the solicitor general to ask the government to stay out of the case. Those kinds of meetings are typical in a high court case when the government is not a party and is not asked by the court to make its views known.

Boies and Chad Griffin, president of the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, also had a meeting at the White House on the case.

Ahead of next week's deadline, nearly two dozen states have filed briefs with the Supreme Court asking the Justices to uphold the California measure.

"There's a critical mass of states that have spoken out and believe states should continue to have the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman," said Jim Campbell, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents supporters of Proposition 8.

Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years. In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By November 2012, some 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.

Obama has overwhelming political support among those who support same-sex marriage. Exit polls from the November election showed that 49 percent of voters believed their states should legally recognize gay marriage. More than 70 percent of those voters backed Obama over Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

One day after the court hears the California case, the justices will hear arguments on another gay marriage case, this one involving provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA. The act defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

The Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law in 2011 but continues to enforce it. Because DOMA is a federal law and the government is a party to the case, the administration does not have to state its opposition through a friend of the court brief.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/21/obama-weighs-stepping-in-on-gay-marriage-case/#ixzz2MuFAZtHx
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 8:22PM  
I think it's a state issue and should stay there. Unless the citizens there take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just some things the Federal Government need not concern them selves with.
somnium

Mar 7 @ 9:12PM  
Well, give anyone enough rope and they'll probably end up hanging themselves!

RJ53

Mar 8 @ 5:11AM  
if it had been left up to the states we would still have separate drinking fountains and Jim Crow Laws. Personally I think the supreme court should decide the case as it is a civil rights case and states have a poor history in handling those situations, As for me who can get marrried does not have an effect on my personal life so it is none of my business, now in a business sense, I work in the wedding industry so hell yeah more business for me if they marry and for a lot of other vendors who stand to make a pretty penny off weddings,
StraddleMyNose

Mar 8 @ 11:04PM  
Personally I think the supreme court should decide the case as it is a civil rights case
No, I personally believe it's not a civil rights case. For a little over the last 20 years, it's been manipulated to be thought of as one when it's really not.

Btw, most of those southern states at that time were mostly run by democrats.

Down below is an article with the link itself that argues whether or not same sex marriage is considered a civil rights case.



Same-sex Marriage Is Not a “Civil Rights” Issue!

ShareThis Published on February 28, 2013 in Current Issues in the World and Ministry Updates.


More and more, we are seeing the widespread acceptance of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage in our Western cultures. Even some in the church are advocating in favor of so-called “gay rights.” And as pro-homosexual advocates have pushed the “gay” agenda in America, they have attempted to frame the cause as a civil rights issue.

But can we really say that the homosexual cause is the same as the civil rights movement? Dr. Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a friend of Answers in Genesis, answers that question in an article in the next Answers magazine. Now, we’ve decided to post this excellent article on our website in advance of the issue’s release because I believe it’s incredibly important you be able to respond to the claims of those advocating for gay rights. I urge you to read it—the introductory paragraphs and a link to the full article are below:


Gay Marriage as a Civil Right—Are Wrongs Right?

We should have seen it coming. Back in 1989 two young activists pushing for the normalization of homosexuality coauthored a book intended to serve as a political strategy manual and public relations guide for their movement. In After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen argued that efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships would fail unless their movement shifted its argument to a demand for civil rights, rather than for moral acceptance. Kirk and Madsen argued that homosexual activists and their allies should avoid talking about sex and sexuality. Instead, “the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”

Beyond Kirk and Madsen and their public relations strategy, an even more effective legal strategy was developed along the same lines. Legal theorists and litigators began to argue that homosexuals were a class of citizens denied basic civil liberties, and that the courts should declare them to be a protected class, using civil rights precedents to force a moral and legal revolution.

That revolution has happened, and it has been stunningly successful. The advocates for the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage have used legal arguments developed from the civil rights era to their advantage. Arguments used to end the scourge of racial segregation were deployed to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships. Over the years, these arguments have led to such major developments as the decriminalization of homosexual behaviors, the inclusion of homosexuals within the United States military, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in some states.

The link
sugarnspice005

Mar 8 @ 11:36PM  
In all honesty, the United States Supreme Court will decide if it's a civil rights issue or not if there is a petition put forth and they decide to hear it or not.

My own personal opinion on it, if gay people want to get married, fine, go for it, I hope they're have a happy life together. Just respect that the church, in most cases, will not recognize it, and will not officiate over such a wedding, so don't force it onto the church. Want respect, be willing to show it. It's a two way street.
Wordsofwit

Mar 9 @ 9:53AM  
I am pretty much with sugar on this one.

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2014 Online Singles, LLC.
OS-WEB01
Obama considers intervening in gay marriage case