Marriage & Family Headlines

"U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby said the request by the state Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices that the National Organization for Marriage disclose names of donors who gave money to defeat a gay marriage law in Maine is not a burden on NOM’s freedom of speech."

Maggie Gallagher writes at Townhall: "When you read the devastating brief that attorney Charles Cooper filed asking the 9th Circuit to overrule Walker, it's not hard to see why. It is a total smack-down of Walker's decision to ignore the immense amount of evidence brought to him -- not to dispute it, but to simply ignore it . . . To give you an example of how extreme Walker is, he ruled that orientation is a protected class subject to strict scrutiny -- ignoring no less than 10 higher-court decisions to the contrary."

". . . No government has the right to use the law to impose falsehoods on its citizens. Our most liberty-loving Founders would instantly recognize that as – tyranny."

Mario Almonte writing at The Huffington Post: "In the movement to legalize same-sex marriages in the United States, the religious right has proven a formidable and unwavering foe, and their victory in delaying the repeal of California's Proposition 8 is persuasive evidence. Since the same-sex marriage movement began in earnest some 40 years ago, religious leaders have prevented all but five states and the District of Columbus from making it legal, and it took nearly 30 years for the first state to do so, in 2003. They have helped defeat similar bills in every state that has put it to popular vote. If anything, the same-sex marriage movement appears to have lost substantial ground . . . "

San Francisco Chronicle: "Hardly anyone noticed when the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1997 that it had 'grave doubts' that the sponsors of a ballot measure - in that case, an English-only initiative for government agencies in Arizona - had the right to defend the law in federal court. Now that case could determine the future of same-sex marriage in California."

"Alliance Defense Fund attorneys together with allied attorneys representing Wisconsin Family Action officers and board members filed suit in state court Wednesday to stop the governor and state legislature from skirting a voter-approved constitutional amendment protecting marriage."

Rick Hasen, William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, writing at the American Constitution Society blog: "I believe caution is in order, and that proponents and opponents of gay marriage should read very little into the Ninth Circuit's order as to how that court is likely to decide the Proposition 8 case. But the Ninth Circuit's decision to issue a stay could increase the chances that the Supreme Court ultimately will side with gay marriage supporters . . . This case already has had more than its share of twists and turns. But for those who want to predict what will happen in the appellate courts, there's really very little to go on so far. Certainly we should not rely on a procedural order containing no written rationale offered by a different set of decisionmakers than the judges who will decide the merits of the appeal."

Alicia Cohn writing at her-meneutics ("The Christianity Today blog for women"): "No-fault divorce is now legal in every state, making filing for divorce in America — whether both parties agree or not — simply a matter of getting the proper paperwork. New York just became the last state to adopt the legislation, passing a bill in early July that was signed into law this week by Governor David Paterson . . . Opposition to the legislation has created unlikely allies out of the Roman Catholic Church, the New York chapter of the feminist group National Organization for Women (NOW), and the nonprofit Marriage Savers, founded by evangelical Mike McManus."

Washington Post: "[The 9th Circuit's decision] came as a huge disappointment to the activists who sought to have Prop 8 declared unconstitutional. But it was a relief for the White House, meaning that a potentially divisive issue would not play out during the fall midterm elections. Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who is close with top White House officials, said Obama has 'suffered through a season of distractions. He didn't need one more distraction.'"

"It’s been 40 days since U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled—in two cases—that the federal benefits provision in the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional . . . the government has not yet decided whether it will appeal."

"From the dawn of the American Revolution, which was preached from the pulpits, to the abolitionist preachers who rallied the antislavery cause, to the religious leaders who inspired the civil rights movement, religion and morality have always played a prominent and entirely proper role in American political life,' he wrote."

Robert W. Wood writing at Forbes: "[T]he biggest tax issues often come up on the unraveling of a marriage. Whether a couple is heterosexual or gay, the tax aspects of unraveling a relationship are very different inside and outside marriage. You might be shocked how these tax rules work."

National Review Online editorial: "In other words, it’s not simply that Walker was overriding the votes of the more than 7 million Californians who voted for Proposition 8. He also tried to make himself essentially a one-man federal judiciary by preventing meaningful review of his ruling by the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court . . . We won’t venture a prediction here whether the Supreme Court will ultimately misinterpret the Constitution and invent a right to same-sex marriage. But under the orderly appellate review that the Ninth Circuit order allows, we hope very much that Walker endures a fourth and final reversal."

"Should the Supreme Court step unwarily into the firestorm of the same-sex marriage issue, with a ruling that upholds the radicalism of Judge Walker (even if rewritten in less inflammatory terms), it will go down in history not as Brown-like 'statesmanship,' but as Roe-like usurpation. And this for the simple reasons that no plausible connection can be made between same-sex marriage and the principles of the Constitution . . . "

The Christian Institute: "[T]he Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a religious liberty organisation which is involved in the case, welcomed the ruling. ADF's [Jim Campbell] said: 'It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the Ninth Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call.'"

Michael Foust reports at Baptist Press: "'It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the Ninth Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call,' said [Jim Campbell], an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is involved in the case. 'Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending. This case has just begun.'"

OneNewsNow: "'Refusing to stay the decision only created more legal confusion surrounding any sort of unions that would have been created while the appeal was pending,' [ADF Attorney Daniel Blomberg] explains, 'so the Ninth Circuit clearly made the right call . . . This case has just begun, and ADF and the rest of the legal team are confident the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.'"

News By the Second: "Governor Schwarzenegger has issued a statement in support of overturning Prop 8 and does not believe the state should pursue an appeal. Private groups, such as the Alliance Defense Fund and the ProtectMarriage.com organization who sponsored the bill, are continuing to fight to keep same-sex marriage from becoming legal."

Washington Blade: 'It made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard,' said [Jim Campbell], litigation staff counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. 'Refusing to stay the decision would only have created more legal confusion surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending . . . ADF and the rest of the legal team is confident that the right of Americans to protect marriage in their state constitutions will ultimately be upheld.'"

Catholic News Agency: "ADF litigation staff counsel [Jim Campbell] added that it 'made no sense to impose a radical change in marriage on the people of California before all appeals on their behalf are heard, so the 9th Circuit’s decision is clearly the right call.'"