Salina Mayor Barb Shirley is the first Kansas mayor to join Mayors for Freedom to Marry, which supports same-sex marriage, the Salina Journal reported. “I want all people to have the same civil rights,” she said. Shirley’s announcement came six months after Salina residents voted 54.2 to 45.8 percent to repeal a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
In a commentary in the Washington Times, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, characterized “God, the flag, mom and apple pie” as pillars “of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture.” He claimed that “activist judges have already expelled faith from the public square” and “decriminalized burning the Stars and Stripes in public.” Huelskamp continued: “The first lady’s ‘Let’s Move!’ initiative and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s sugary-drink ban suggest the days of consuming apple pie might well be numbered. That leaves motherhood.” And that will be irreparably harmed, he wrote, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. “Redefining marriage to remove parents of both sexes from the equation would further the destruction of the family, the most fundamental building block of society,” he wrote.
Gov. Sam Brownback may think same-sex marriage is a settled issue in Kansas eight years after nearly 70 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment that prohibited it and barred the state from recognizing civil unions. And 87 percent of those Kansans recently polled by SurveyUSA said their opinion on same-sex marriage hadn’t changed over the past couple of years. But the survey, sponsored by KWCH, Channel 12, also found that 60 percent of Kansans said same-sex couples should be able to share in the legal benefits of marriage. In addition, 42 percent said the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold lower courts’ rulings against California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Sen. Rob Portman (in photo), R-Ohio, created a buzz by announcing a change of heart on same-sex marriage, a decision that followed a son’s announcement that he is gay. But according to ThinkProgress, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, was dismissive, calling Portman “a senator who couldn’t deliver his own home state in the presidential election” and complaining that “somehow we’re supposed to believe that if we abandon traditional marriage that liberals are going to flock to us.” Speaking at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Huelskamp also said, “The principle is, traditional marriage and family is the foundation of society.” Asked whether he would re-examine his own position if he had a gay son, the Kansan said: “I support traditional marriage.”
Eight years ago, an amendment to the Kansas Constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions passed with an unequivocal 70 percent of the vote. But attitudes are changing in the state, at least according to a February survey by Public Policy Polling. Fifty-one percent of those Kansans polled said same-sex marriage should not be allowed, but only 34 percent said there should be no legal recognition of gay relationships. Another 34 percent said gay couples should be allowed to marry, while 29 percent approved of civil unions but not marriages for gay couples.
Though city ordinances protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination were voted down in Hutchinson and Salina, there were big victories for gay rights nationally. Maine and Maryland voters legalized gay marriage, and Minnesota voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Washington state also appears to have legalized gay marriage. Meanwhile, Wisconsin elected the first openly gay U.S. senator in history, Rep. Tammy Baldwin.
A Chicago official and a gay-rights organization announced last week that Chick-fil-A executives had pledged to stop giving money to anti-gay groups. The company said in a letter that its nonprofit arm, the WinShape Foundation, would not support “organizations with political agendas,” and it affirmed in a statement that it would protect its employees against discrimination. But after a backlash from conservative Christians who had rallied to support the company, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy denied the company has agreed to cease making donations to groups that oppose gay marriage.
More than 8 in 10 Americans want limits on the amount of money that corporations, unions and other groups can donate to political action committees to try to influence U.S. elections, according to a survey by Associated Press and the National Constitution Center. But as AP noted, such limits might require a constitutional amendment, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United case that such spending is a protected form of political speech. More than 6 in 10 of those surveyed also favored giving same-sex couples the same government benefits as other married couples, and slightly more than half of Americans support legal recognition of gay marriage.
The reaction to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy saying that he supports traditional marriages “tells you everything you need to know about certain liberals who believe every sort of speech, activity and expression should be protected, except the speech, activity and expression of evangelical Christians,” columnist Cal Thomas wrote. He argued that the controversy and calls by some to boycott Chick-fil-A are more than an economic battle. “It is a First Amendment issue,” he wrote. “Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. Cathy has a right to his opinion.”
A SurveyUSA poll, sponsored by KWCH, Channel 12, found 42 percent of Kansans agreeing with President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage – perhaps surprising for a state that saw a constitutional amendment to ban it pass with 70 percent of the vote in 2005. In the survey, 55 percent said they disagreed with Obama, and 37 percent said a candidate’s view on the issue would be very important in the coming election. The agreement with Obama was highest among liberals and Democrats, followed by 18- to 34-year-olds (53 percent), northeast Kansans (49 percent), and women and moderates (47 percent).
Thirty-eight percent of Americans support same-sex marriage and 24 percent support civil unions, while 33 percent oppose both, according to a new CBS News/New York Times survey. Only 32 percent of those surveyed think the federal government should determine whether same-sex marriage is legal, and 57 percent favor letting individual states make that decision. Yet 50 percent favor an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage. Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed think President Obama is now supporting gay marriage “mostly for political reasons,” though 57 percent said his decision would have no effect on which candidate they support. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found voters nearly evenly split on Obama’s announcement, with 46 percent having a favorable view and 47 percent unfavorable.
Barack Obama’s evolving stance on gay marriage has finally brought the president and the nation to the bright side of history. For the first time, a U.S. president has unequivocally affirmed that same-sex couples should be able to legally marry. In an interview with Robin Roberts of ABC News, Obama offered a well-crafted and nuanced explanation of how he transitioned from supporting legal rights short of marriage for same-sex couples to endorsing legal nuptials. Obama was careful to emphasize that his position was a personal one. Laws governing marriage are primarily the responsibility of the individual states. Unfortunately, 30 states, including Kansas and Missouri, have laws banning gay marriage. North Carolina joined the list on Tuesday with a public vote. But the tide is clearly turning. And for the first time, the millions of gay and lesbian Americans who want nothing less than the full privileges of citizenship can claim the president of the United States as an ally. – Kansas City Star
President Obama’s announcement that he supports legalizing same-sex marriage finally brings his words in sync with his actions. From opposing state marriage amendments to refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act to giving taxpayer-funded marriage benefits to same-sex couples, the president has undermined the spirit if not the letter of the law. As demonstrated by the overwhelming vote in North Carolina, redefining marriage remains outside the mainstream of American politics, especially in the critical battleground states and among minority voters. The president’s announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election. The president has provided a clear contrast between him and his challenger Mitt Romney. Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by Obama. – Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
Under heavy pressure, the law firm that had agreed to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court for the House GOP, King & Spalding, pulled out of the case. But then the partner who had been tapped to lead the defense, Paul Clement, resigned from the firm in protest and said he would continue on the case. Clement said in his statement that lawyers must be willing to defend “unpopular causes.” But leading gay-rights advocate Richard Socarides, who had led the charge against the firm, pointed out that it’s folly to present this as a principled stance. “If a lawyer represents an unpopular client who’s defending an important principle, that is what the legal system is about,” Socarides said. But, Socarides continued, “the only principle he (Clement) wishes to defend is discrimination and second-class citizenship for gay Americans. It’s very wrong.” — Greg Sargent, Washington Post
The public campaign to force King & Spalding to drop its client, the House of Representatives, on the Defense of Marriage Act case may have opened a Pandora’s box and exposed the gross hypocrisy of those who bristle at any suggestion that some clients are unworthy of representation. Even more disturbing than the left’s unprincipled campaign is what this says about the law firm’s resolve to defend unpopular clients. It is gratifying that distinguished lawyers from diverse ideological perspectives can agree on this fundamental issue: Lawyers shouldn’t fold like a cheap suitcase when their clients become unpopular, and ostensible defenders of the sanctity of our judicial system shouldn’t become bullies when it comes to the right to representation. — Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post
“President Obama’s announcement last week that he will refuse to do his job when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act is part of (a) stunning pattern of rejecting the democratic process,” wrote Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “Obama said that his administration would not defend the law in legal challenges because it is unconstitutional, but that it would continue to enforce the law selectively. This is incomprehensible and incoherent, except in nakedly political terms. The president is using his power to do what he — and his base — wants.”
On the other hand, not defending laws that an administration thinks are unconstitutional is not that unusual. “It has happened more than a dozen times since 2004 and many more in the past 60 years,” NPR reported. For example, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Truman refused to defend separate-but-equal facilities in schools and hospitals. President Ford refused to defend the post-Watergate campaign finance law, and the Reagan administration refused to defend the independent counsel law and the one-house legislative veto of many executive actions. President George W. Bush refused to defend a federal law that denied mass-transit funds to any transportation system that displayed ads advocating the legalization of marijuana and a federal law providing affirmative action in the awarding of broadcasting licenses, NPR reported.
Barbara Bush, daughter of George W. Bush, came out Tuesday in favor of gay marriage, saying it was “about fairness and equality.” Meghan McCain, the daughter of John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, also supports same-sex marriage. Mary Cheney does, too — though so does her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Concerned about judicial tyranny, Iowans booted all three of the state Supreme Court justices who appeared on Tuesday’s ballot. The Hawkeye State’s judicial elections rarely generate much controversy or interest. That changed with the high court’s unanimous 2009 decision discovering a right to homosexual “marriage” in the state constitution — a view that would have shocked those who drafted the document long before homosexuality was the subject of polite conversation, let alone political debate. In our system of divided government, members of the judicial branch have a very specific duty to interpret the fine points of constitutional law and to apply the meaning of more mundane legislation to specific cases. When judges step outside this role and act as robed political leaders, they don’t just become controversial, they become a threat to our political system based on the separation of powers. That fact should not be lost on judges across the country who are tempted to substitute their personal policy views for the disinterested application of the law. Judges should realize that even people who agree with their views want judges to keep those views to themselves. — Washington Times
The removal of three members of the Iowa Supreme Court was a heartbreaking defeat for three fine judges sideswiped by a campaign of angry retribution for a single unpopular ruling. More than that, Tuesday’s vote was a body blow to the principle of an independent judiciary insulated from popular sentiment. If punishing judges for unpopular decisions becomes common, the people of Iowa will be the ultimate losers. That includes those who initiated this campaign, because their rights may one day be on the line. Nothing was achieved by this campaign against the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 decision striking down the state law denying the civil benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. That ruling is the law, and it was not affected by Tuesday’s vote. Indeed, it should not be affected. The credibility of the court would be grievously damaged if the act of changing three justices were enough to cause the seven-member court to reverse itself. Tuesday’s defeat of three justices will leave a black mark on Iowa history. There clearly is a need for a refresher course on the concepts of separation of powers, checks and balances and the role of the courts in defending the liberties of minorities. — Des Moines Register
Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi hears all the fuss about same-sex marriage, with “two activist groups trying to force their own ethical construction of marriage on the rest of us,” and wonders why it matters to the state at all. “Is there any other personal relationship that is defined by government? Other than in legal terms, of course, this one isn’t, either,” he writes. “Yet, we have decided that either a majority on the Supreme Court or, perhaps, a majority of voters in your state or, even worse, a majority of your legislators in your state have the power to define what is most often the most intimate bond of your life.”
A federal judge’s ruling Wednesday overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage was just one step in a long legal battle. Still, the ruling was historic in deciding that the state ban violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process. Supporters of the ban argue that the public and state legislatures should be able to decide marriage policies. But the judge, quoting a 1943 case, ruled that “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.” Or as a New York Times editorial summarized it, that discrimination isn’t permissible just because a majority of voters approve it.
A federal judge’s ruling last week striking down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act highlighted a divide between the libertarian leaders of the tea party movement and many social conservatives drawn to the cause. Though the tea party deliberately has tried to focus on fiscal concerns and avoid social issues, some tea party leaders are quietly applauding the court ruling, because it is based on one of their key concerns: states’ rights. “On the issue (of gay marriage) itself, we have no stance,” Everett Wilkinson, state director for the Florida Tea Party Patriots, told the Washington Post. “But any time a state’s rights or powers are encouraged over the federal government, it is a good thing.”
Not long ago, notes Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, “opposition to abortion and opposition to homosexual rights seemed to overlap entirely.” But public opinion is diverging on the two issues, with recent polls indicating that majorities of Americans consider themselves “pro-life” and homosexuality “not a moral issue.” Two-thirds also favor civil unions for gay couples. Gerson concludes: “So far the gay rights movement has succeeded for many of the same reasons that the pro-life movement (to a lesser extent) has succeeded. Both have taken sometimes abstract, theoretical arguments and humanized them. Both have moved away from extreme-sounding moralism (or anti-moralism) and placed their cause in the context of civil rights progress. Whatever your view on the application of these arguments, this is the way social movements advance in America.”
From the New York Times: “Washington is now the sixth place in the nation where same-sex marriages can take place. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Despite failing in court, opponents of the law vowed to fight another day.”
“The truth is that if Maj. Nidal Hasan, the accused killer of 13 people at Fort Hood, had entered the officers club there with a nice handbag on his arm, perhaps a Gucci tote, he would have been out of the Army by the end of the week,” columnist Richard Cohen wrote. “Since he was merely antisocial, a misfit, an incompetent psychiatrist and a likely Islamic fanatic, he was retained and promoted. This says something about America. On the subject of gays, we are a tad nuts ourselves.”
Though New Hampshire last week became the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage, 57 percent of Americans oppose granting such marriages legal status, according to a recent Gallup poll. But 69 percent of Americans surveyed favor allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military, according to the poll. The biggest increase in support — which essentially equates to repealing the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — comes from conservatives, who have gone from 46 percent in favor in 2004 to 58 percent last month. Also, support from people who identify themselves as weekly churchgoers increased from 49 to 60 percent.
“Eight and a half years after their epic partisan battle over the fate of the 2000 presidential election, the lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson appeared on the same team on Wednesday as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit that has nothing to do with hanging chads, butterfly ballots or Electoral College votes,” the New York Times reported. Boies and Olson are challenging California’s ban on gay marriage, which the California Supreme Court upheld this week. The former rivals are arguing that Proposition 8 violates the federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
First there was the gay marriage question at the Miss USA pageant. Now Miss California Carrie Prejean is in hot water for posing for racy modeling pictures several years ago. What’s more, she assured the Miss California USA pageant, after one of the photos was released, that only one photo existed. But then a second was released, and there reportedly are two more. Prejean had signed a contract with Miss California USA stating she has never been photographed nude or partially nude. As a result, she could lose her Miss California crown. Oh, the horror. Also, it was reported earlier that the Miss California USA pageant paid for Prejean to get breast implants.
Who knew there was so much scandal potential in a beauty pageant? Will Prejean continue to be a heroine of the religious right?
