Tag Archives: Debate Marriage

Hillary Clinton Hopes the Supreme Court Will Make Marriage Equality Legal Nationwide

Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton made headlines when she finally announced that she would be running for President in the 2016 election. The former Secretary of State was widely regarded as the only possible presidential candidate for the Democratic party due to her long career in politics and her name recognition – few candidates on either the Democratic or Republican side are as well-known.

Many also believe that Hillary has a strong chance of winning. Despite the recent controversy surrounding her decision to use her personal email address to send out confidential emails (rather than her official government email), her stance on women’s rights (she is a huge supporter of them) and immigration (she supports the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants) makes her a hit with women and people of colour; two important demos that Republicans have mostly offended and failed to appeal to thus far.

She also stands a strong chance of winning the majority of the LGBT vote too. Clinton has been an outspoken advocate for LGBT rights for several years and a statement from her campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod explained that:

Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right.”

Clinton’s statement comes as the Supreme Court gears up for a monumental ruling on marriage equality, regarding the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to uphold same-sex marriage bans in the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky. The Supreme Court will be deciding whether the United States Constitution requires a state to issue marriage license of two people of the same sex and if a state is required to recognise a same-sex marriage if their marriage was (lawfully) licensed in a different state. Essentially, a ruling in favour of marriage equality here would make it legal across the entire United States and would make it illegal for states to try and ban same-sex marriage, as several have tried to do already.

The statement from Clinton is also important as it was previously unclear just what her stance on marriage equality was. Back in 2008, Clinton along with then-Senator Barack Obama, both agreed that although same-sex couples should be able to have civil partnerships, neither of them supported same-sex marriage. The stance seemed unsurprising at the time given that her husband Bill Clinton introduced the restrictive Defense of Marriage Act during his presidency (although he later said that he regretted it) and LGBT rights were significantly less popular in 2008 as they are now. And, although Clinton has spoken in favour of LGBT rights, just last year she said that marriage equality should be left up to the states to decide.

Unfortunately, Clinton hasn’t revealed what has led to her change of heart. Many will chalk it down to the fact that it would reflect badly on her if she didn’t support LGBT rights wholeheartedly, given that President Obama has issued many statements (and some executive orders) both supporting and protecting LGBT rights. However, regardless of her reasoning, her position on marriage equality should be seen as a good thing.

How Many LGBT People Oppose Marriage Equality?

One of the loudest arguments in the fight for LGBT equality has been same sex marriage rights. Same sex marriage has been at the forefront of the movement, as grassroots campaigners and leading politicians alike champion same sex marriage, attempting to repeal laws that go against it and make it legal in places that only offered civil unions or partnerships.

And that campaigning has been incredibly successful. In the United States, same sex marriage campaigners have seen the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) repealed in order for same sex married couples to have their marriages recognised by the government and over 70% of the population now lives in a place where same sex marriage is legal.

Meanwhile, in the UK, David Cameron has said that helping bring same sex marriage into law is one of his proudest achievements.

But has it all been for nothing? Despite the growing support for same sex marriage amongst in and out of the LGBT community, a new study from Pew suggests that many LGBT people are actually opposed to it.

Pew deemed that overall, 7% of LGBT people in the United States are opposed to same sex marriage. The biggest demographics who are against same sex marriage are LGBT African-Americans, LGBT Republicans and bisexuals.

58% of black LGBT people are strongly in favour of same sex marriage, with 12% against it.

45% of LGBT Republicans are strongly in favour, with 19% against it. 8% of bisexuals are against same sex marriage and 22% don’t feel strongly in favour or against it.

The data suggests that religion and age could have been strong factors in LGBT people feeling this way as although 82% of those ages 18 to 29 were in support, 71% of LGBT people over 30 support same sex marriage, which is a big difference.

And in religious groups, 67% of religious LGBT people support same sex marriage in comparison to 82% of non-religiously affiliated LGBT people supporting it.

What’s also important to note is that Pew’s data was collected in 2013, which was before the many same sex marriage victories that took place in the United States in 2014. Perhaps respondents saw those victories take place and changed their opinions afterwards.

Other Pew data told us that 18% of LGBT people overall were in favour of same sex marriage but not strongly.

That’s likely down to the fact that a growing number of LGBT people feel as though same sex marriage gets too much of the limelight and that other LGBT rights issues – such as housing, employment and adoption rights – deserve more attention.

Clearly there is work to be done on all fronts, so we’ll keep you posted once we know more.

US Supreme Court to Finally Address Same-Sex Marriage Debate Across All America

Setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling, the Supreme Court has announcedit will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution.

In a move that sets the stage for a historic final decision, the court said it would convene in April to study cases in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky, which have banned same-sex marriage.

Justices will address two questions: whether states are bound by the Constitution to license a same-sex marriage, and whether a state is required to recognize same-sex marriages which took place out-of-state.

If they answer yes, same-sex marriage will become legal in all 50 US states.

“That will urge the Supreme Court to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans. It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans—no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love.”

Attorney General Eric Holder

The Justice Department made the decision to advocate for same-sex marriages several years ago.

“Marriage has returned to the US Supreme Court faster than virtually any other issue in American history, and there’s a simple reason for that. Committed and loving gay and lesbian couples, their children, and the fair-minded American people refuse to wait a single day longer.

We’ve reached the moment of truth … now the nine justices of the Supreme Court have an urgent opportunity to guarantee fairness for countless families, once and for all.”

Chad Griffin, Human Rights Campaign

In a landmark decision in June 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a law denying federal benefits to homosexual couples by defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In doing so, it cleared the way for married gay and lesbian couples to enjoy the same rights and privileges under federal law as their straight counterparts.

 

Kansas, Montana and South Carolina are Refusing to Allow Same-sex Couples to Obtain Marriage Licenses

These three States are continuing their legal fight against same-sex marriage, despite rulings from the Ffederal Appeals Courts. Kansas, Montana and South Carolina are refusing to allow same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses without a court order directing them to do so, even as officials in other states have abandoned defense of gay marriage bans.

In a political campaign debate, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback vowed to defend his state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

There seems little doubt that U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ultimately will set aside the state’s gay marriage ban. That’s because the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, encompassing Kansas and five other states, has said a state may not deny a marriage license to two people of the same sex.

“He is absolutely bound and has to make that decision,”

Sarah Warbelow, Legal Director of the Human Rights Campaign

The same requirement holds true for federal judges who are hearing same-sex marriage lawsuits in Montana and South Carolina.

John Eastman, chairman of the anti-gay marriage National Organization for Marriage, agreed with Warbelow that federal judges almost certainly will rule to allow same-sex marriages. But Eastman urged state officials to continue to put up a legal fight until the Supreme Court decides the issue one way or the other.

State officials in Colorado, North Carolina and West Virginia chose a different path. They helped speed the process for legalizing gay marriage in their states when they announced they would no longer defend their state laws in the aftermath of the appeals court rulings.

The latest wave of court rulings that has made same-sex marriage legal in 32 states and the District of Columbia began with the unexpected decision by the Supreme Court on Oct. 6 to reject appeals by five states hoping to keep their bans in place.

The high court’s refusal to step in affected appeals courts in Chicago, Denver and Richmond, Virginia, which in turn oversee 11 states that did not previously allow same-sex couples to marry. Since the justices’ terse order, same-sex couples have been able to marry in nine of those 11 states, with Wyoming on Tuesday becoming the latest to permit it. Only Kansas and South Carolina have not followed suit.

A day after the Supreme Court action, the federal appeals court in San Francisco struck down gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada in a ruling that also appeared to apply to Alaska, Arizona and Montana. Since then, federal judges in Alaska and Arizona quickly ruled on pending marriage lawsuits. But in Montana, a federal judge has set a hearing in a marriage challenge for Nov. 20.

No court date has been set for South Carolina, where Attorney General Alan Wilson has said he will continue to defend state marriage law and predicted a final ruling could be months away.

The timing of court action varies from judge to judge, depending on what other matters are before the court and how much say the judge wants each side to have, Warbelow said.

In North Carolina, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. acted on his own to strike down the state ban after the Richmond-based appeals court ruling became final.

Alaska’s Same-Sex Marriage Battle – ‘Citizens, Not The Courts Should Decide Whether Marriage Definition Includes Same-sex Couples’

Court papers filed Friday in Alaska, say Citizens, not the courts, should decide whether the definition of marriage includes same-sex couples.

The state is defending in federal court an amendment to Alaska’s constitution that bans gay marriage. In May, five same-sex couples – four married outside of Alaska and one unmarried couple – sued to overturn the ban approved by voters in 1998, saying it violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

In a filing Friday, attorneys for the state said citizens have a fundamental right to decide whether to make changes to important institutions through the democratic process.

“The State of Alaska does not dispute that the residents of individual states have the right to change their marriage laws. … However, the State urges that residents of Alaska possess the same fundamental right to retain the traditional definition of marriage. This basic premise of democratic government should not be usurped by the judiciary absent compelling circumstances which the State respectfully urges are not present in this case.”

The attorneys said that allowing Alaska residents to decide whether to keep the traditional definition of marriage, of being between one man and one woman, “serves the important governmental interests of supporting the democratic form of government.”

The attorneys said there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the due-process clause of the U.S. Constitution. The state also argues that Alaska laws prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages from other states or countries do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

The state said recent court decisions across the country in support of gay marriage don’t point to a foregone conclusion in this case but to intervention by some courts into a law-making process that should be reserved for the people.

Oral arguments in the case have been set for next month.

Possible Progress – Cardinals to Debate Marriage

The battle lines are being drawn before a major church meeting on family issues that represents a key test for Pope Francis.

Five high-ranking cardinals have taken one of Francis’ favorite theologians to task over an issue dear to the pope’s heart: Whether Catholics who divorce and remarry without an annulment can receive Communion.

They have written a book, “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” to rebut German Cardinal Walter Kasper, whom Francis praised in his first Sunday blessing after he was elected pope as “a great theologian” and subsequently entrusted with a keynote speech to set the agenda for the two-year study on marriage, divorce and family life that opens Oct. 5.

Kasper, for a decade the Vatican’s top official dealing with the Orthodox and Jews, delivered his remarks to cardinals earlier this year on the issues to be discussed during the synod. At the pope’s request, he asked whether these divorced and remarried Catholics might be allowed in limited cases to receive the Eucharist after a period of penance.

The outcry that ensued has turned the 81-year-old Kasper into the biggest lightning rod for internal debate that the Catholic Church has seen in years.

Conservatives, including the five cardinal authors, have vehemently opposed Kasper’s suggestion as contrary to Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

The second most powerful man in the Vatican has backed their view: Cardinal George Pell, one of Francis’ key advisers, wrote in another new book that debating something that is so peripheral to begin with and so clear in church teaching amounts to “a counterproductive and futile search for short-term consolations.”

“Every opponent of Christianity wants the church to capitulate on this issue. We should speak clearly, because the sooner the wounded, the lukewarm and the outsiders realize that substantial doctrinal and pastoral changes are impossible, the more the hostile disappointment (which must follow the reassertion of doctrine) will be anticipated and dissipated.”

Cardinal George Pell

Francis, however, seems to think otherwise. He praised Kasper’s speech, calling it “profound theology” that did him much good and represented a true love for the church.

Church insiders say Francis is none too pleased by the war of words that has ensued, such that he instructed one of the book authors – Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, the Vatican’s top doctrinal chief – not to promote it.

The unusually raw and public debate has crystalized the growing discomfort among conservatives to some of Francis’ words and deeds, and sets the stage for a likely heated discussion on family issues.

Church teaching holds that Catholics who don’t have their first marriage annulled – or declared null by a church tribunal – before remarrying can’t participate fully in the church’s sacraments because they are essentially living in sin and committing adultery. Such annulments are often impossible to get or can take years to process, leaving untold numbers of Catholics unable to receive Communion.

Francis has asserted church doctrine on the matter but has called for a more merciful, pastoral approach. He reportedly told an Argentine woman earlier this year that she was free to receive Communion even though her husband’s first marriage was never annulled.

Knowing the issue is divisive, though, he has convened the whole church to discuss it.

The new book asserts there really is no better solution – and no grounds to argue for it since Catholic doctrine is clear. Aside from Mueller, the authors include another high-ranking Vatican official: Cardinal Raymond Burke, the American head of the Vatican’s supreme court.

“These are not a series of rules made up by the church; they constitute divine law, and the church cannot change them,” the book says. Kasper’s assertions, reading of history and suggestions for debate “reinforce misleading understandings of both fidelity and mercy.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke

Kasper has agreed there can be no change to church doctrine and no sweeping, across-the-board allowances. But he has said the matter must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, that mercy is God’s greatest attribute and the key to Christian existence, and that God always gives faithful Catholics a new chance if they repent.

It is rare for cardinals to publicly and pointedly accuse one another of being wrong, and rarer still for a cardinal to question the pope, as Burke has done.

Regarding the purported phone call to the Argentine woman, Burke told the EWTN Catholic channel:

“I wouldn’t for a moment impute that Pope Francis intended to give a signal about church doctrine by calling someone on the phone. This is just absurd.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke

Burke has also questioned Francis’ first encyclical on the excesses of capitalism and obliquely criticized Francis’ decision to not focus on abortion.

Francis last year removed Burke, a key figure in the U.S. culture wars over abortion and gay marriage, as a member of the powerful Congregation for Bishops. A leading Vatican insider has reported that his days at the Vatican high court are numbered.

The books are published in English by Ignatius Press.