Partisan split marks high court gay marriage cases
WASHINGTON (AP) - No Democratic attorney general in a state that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying has signed onto a legal filing asking the Supreme Court to uphold California's constitutional ban on gay marriage.
No Republican attorney general is asking the high court to rule in favor of marriage equality.
The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, supported by 10 GOP senators, is spearheading the defense of the federal law that prevents legally married gay couples from collecting a range of federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.
Some 212 Democrats and independents in Congress want part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act overturned. That includes two dozen who initially voted for it.
A continuing distinct partisan divide is present in the gay marriage cases at the Supreme Court, set for arguments March 26-27, even though a brief on behalf of more than 100 prominent Republicans calls for marriage equality. The split is most in evidence in legal briefs filed with the court by state attorneys general.
All 21 attorneys general who have signed legal briefs or letters urging the court to uphold California's ban on same-sex marriage are Republican.
The result of the federal appeals court ruling striking down California's ban, known as Proposition 8, "is disintegration of perhaps the most fundamental and revered cultural institution of American life: marriage as we know it," the Republicans said. The states represented on the briefs mostly are reliably Republican and chose GOP nominee Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama in November.
But also are included are four states won by Obama - Colorado, Michigan, Virginia and Wisconsin.
An additional 14 attorneys general who are asking the court for the opposite outcome are Democrats, including those from the nine states that allow gay couples to wed. Also among those Democrats are California's Kamala Harris and Ellen Rosenblum of Oregon, which has a constitutional prohibition on same-sex weddings. Obama won all 14 states.
Removing barriers and promoting the equality of spouses has strengthened the institution of marriage, the Democratic attorneys general said. "Over the past decade, this evolution has been affirmed as same-sex couples have been permitted to marry. Against that history of greater inclusion and equality, Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples and excludes them from the opportunity to marry," the Democrats said.
Florida and Ohio are among nine other states that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their constitutions, but that are not represented in the Supreme Court debate at all.
Obama won both states in November, but Republicans control the state government. Spokesmen for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, both Republicans, declined comment.
In the seven other states, a Democrat is attorney general. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood wants the court to issue narrow rulings in both cases, spokeswoman Jan Schaefer said. "The outcome of the two cases should not directly impact Mississippi law," Schaefer said.
The participants in the two cases and other interested parties have submitted nearly 200 briefs that range from broad historical overviews to personal stories to technical legal matters.
The Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Mormon church and Orthodox Jewish congregations are among religious organizations urging the court to uphold the California provision.
Supporters of same-sex marriage include Episcopal bishops in California, the United Church of Christ, and the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism.
There are testimonials in support of gay marriage from the straight parents and siblings of gays and lesbians, as well as from people who call themselves survivors of efforts to help them change their sexual orientation. On the other side, some members of the ex-gay community defend traditional marriage laws, and some gay and bisexual men say the courts should not be involved in defining marriage.
One group of international scholars and jurists argues that reserving marriage for straight couples, while offering other protections for gay Americans, is consistent with practices in other countries. Experts in foreign law claim that upholding Proposition 8 would diminish the U.S. on the world stage at a time when many other nations also are moving toward marriage equality.
The court is expected to rule in the cases by the end of June.
No Republican attorney general is asking the high court to rule in favor of marriage equality.
The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, supported by 10 GOP senators, is spearheading the defense of the federal law that prevents legally married gay couples from collecting a range of federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.
Some 212 Democrats and independents in Congress want part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act overturned. That includes two dozen who initially voted for it.
A continuing distinct partisan divide is present in the gay marriage cases at the Supreme Court, set for arguments March 26-27, even though a brief on behalf of more than 100 prominent Republicans calls for marriage equality. The split is most in evidence in legal briefs filed with the court by state attorneys general.
All 21 attorneys general who have signed legal briefs or letters urging the court to uphold California's ban on same-sex marriage are Republican.
The result of the federal appeals court ruling striking down California's ban, known as Proposition 8, "is disintegration of perhaps the most fundamental and revered cultural institution of American life: marriage as we know it," the Republicans said. The states represented on the briefs mostly are reliably Republican and chose GOP nominee Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama in November.
But also are included are four states won by Obama - Colorado, Michigan, Virginia and Wisconsin.
An additional 14 attorneys general who are asking the court for the opposite outcome are Democrats, including those from the nine states that allow gay couples to wed. Also among those Democrats are California's Kamala Harris and Ellen Rosenblum of Oregon, which has a constitutional prohibition on same-sex weddings. Obama won all 14 states.
Removing barriers and promoting the equality of spouses has strengthened the institution of marriage, the Democratic attorneys general said. "Over the past decade, this evolution has been affirmed as same-sex couples have been permitted to marry. Against that history of greater inclusion and equality, Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples and excludes them from the opportunity to marry," the Democrats said.
Florida and Ohio are among nine other states that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their constitutions, but that are not represented in the Supreme Court debate at all.
Obama won both states in November, but Republicans control the state government. Spokesmen for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, both Republicans, declined comment.
In the seven other states, a Democrat is attorney general. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood wants the court to issue narrow rulings in both cases, spokeswoman Jan Schaefer said. "The outcome of the two cases should not directly impact Mississippi law," Schaefer said.
The participants in the two cases and other interested parties have submitted nearly 200 briefs that range from broad historical overviews to personal stories to technical legal matters.
The Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Mormon church and Orthodox Jewish congregations are among religious organizations urging the court to uphold the California provision.
Supporters of same-sex marriage include Episcopal bishops in California, the United Church of Christ, and the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism.
There are testimonials in support of gay marriage from the straight parents and siblings of gays and lesbians, as well as from people who call themselves survivors of efforts to help them change their sexual orientation. On the other side, some members of the ex-gay community defend traditional marriage laws, and some gay and bisexual men say the courts should not be involved in defining marriage.
One group of international scholars and jurists argues that reserving marriage for straight couples, while offering other protections for gay Americans, is consistent with practices in other countries. Experts in foreign law claim that upholding Proposition 8 would diminish the U.S. on the world stage at a time when many other nations also are moving toward marriage equality.
The court is expected to rule in the cases by the end of June.
I have no problem with gay marriage, women's reproductive choice or what ever adults do in their bed rooms. I just can't find these the US Constitution. If the states pass laws regarding these subjects it is their right under the 10th Amendment. There is absolutely no basis in law for the Feds to stick their nose in this.Â
But my comments are moot because the USA has accepted judicial tyranny long ago.
@Goodwin With regards to gay marriage, see the Equal Protection Clause to the 14th Amendment.
"We need less government! Wait, gays want to get married? We need more government for that!" Hypocrits.
@therunner Non sequitur and devoid of logic.
Not a surprise to me. The republicans are not interested in taking care of people or making sure there is equality in anything to do with how people are treated.
@sb in seattle I know lots of Republicans and none resemble what you said.   Where do you guys get this nonsense?
@Goodwin Probably from people like Chris Matthews and the other air-heads on MSNBC.Â
I swear, this subject is equivalent to beating a dead horse. Enough already. If it will shut'em up, let'em marry. Good grief.
@Bianca. So it's okay to allow discrimination? What if you were not allowed to marry the person you loved? What if you were denied a right that everyone else has? Don't make someoneâs inequality trivial.
@Bianca That is exactly what the gays and lesbians want to do. It is our own government that is sticking to it's conservative core values that will not allow it.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that we, not the elected, govern these United States. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men (& Women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The government needs to stand aside and allow the people to determine their life's course.
(jeepers) This subject, just cannot evolve into friggin' EQUALITY in this backwards government..... Good grief just get it handled....
This comment has been deleted
@the unvarnished truth @Funky-Munky Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults, no one is going to be marrying minors or pets. Good lord, grow up!
@the unvarnished truth:  Unless you can give some well documented specifics on this so called push you are nothing but a fear monger spewing lies.  By the way, marrying pets or buildings is a non-starter as they cannot give consent.  And no I am not a hypocrite!  There are valid medical reasons for not allowing immediate family members to marry, so the state has a valid interest there. (Of course, that hasn't stopped people from incestuous activities.)
Which states, other than Utah? Who's pushing? What are your sources?
This issue has to be decided at the federal level. If a person is married in Washington, they should still be married in Mississippi! What if a same sex couple marry in Washington and then one of them is transfered to a different state because of their job. Jobs are not easy to find these days, so what choice do they have? I always thought Republicans were all about less government, I guess that doesn't apply when it comes to people's bedrooms.
This comment has been deleted
@the unvarnished truth @justmyopinion Just because it requires a license and they charge a fee for that, doesn't make marriage fair game for Republican's. Your argument holds no water.
Republicans are all about fair taxes, so why would they allow married couples to benefit from a tax break for getting married, only to ban same sex couples from getting married? Either get rid of the tax break or let gays marry.
This comment has been deleted
people have voted,why is it democrats particularly continue to show disrespect to the people who vote them into office? 2/3 vote to raise taxes passed 5 times,democrats take it to court. the court rules in their favor. The people still voted 5 times,they should respect their constituents will.the same in California,they votes against homosexuals getting married,show some respect. There are ways to allow visitation and other wishes or wants. If Obama care stays around ,the health benefit will no longer be an issue.Â
@Maynard G Krebbs. So it is ok to disscriminate against a group of people? Would you feel it's right if you were in a group that wasn't allowed to marry someone you love? Btw, just allowing vistitation in some states but not others doesn't work. What about when my wife and I travel to other states? I can't see her if she is in the hospital? Seperate is not equal.
@Maynard G Krebbs And if put to a vote today, there are still several states that would vote to ban inter racial marriage again. The fundamental rights of the citizenry should not be subject to the whims of a discriminatory electorate.
This comment has been deleted
@usnrbb Why should unvarnished have to do the research, when you are the one who made the claim? It's your job to back up your claim with a source. Don't give us this "I'm not interested in doing the research for you" cop out garbage.
@the unvarnished truth:  I do believe that there are at least two states with anti-miscegenation laws still on their books, (like many other laws), but they have been invalidated by court rulings.  (Sorry but I'm not really interested enough to do the research for you.)