Tag Archives: marriage equality

legal news

Feds aren't seeking to create 'moral standard'

Here’s a shocker: The Texas Legislature and its Republican super-majority in the House of Representatives is likely to consider legislation that blocks any effort to lift the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

OK, it’s not a shocker. I was kidding.

State Rep. Cecil Bell, R-Magnolia, has filed House Bill 623 that would prevent the federal courts or the Congress from legalizing same-sex marriage.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/08/no-salaries-for-recognizing-gay-marriage-bill-says/

According to the Texas Tribune: “The federal government is trying to act to create moral standards, and that’s just not acceptable,” Bell said.

Let’s hold on for a moment.

I do not believe the feds are seeking to “create moral standards” with court rulings striking down same-sex marriage laws in several states. The impetus behind the rulings — in every instance — has been the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants full rights of citizenship to every American citizen. Full rights of citizenship means that every American is guaranteed “equal protection” under the law.

That means, quite clearly, that if you love someone who happens to be of the same sex as you, the Constitution gives you the right — as a citizen — to marry that individual, just as any citizen is able to marry someone of the opposite gender.

The Tribune reports: “The bill also requires state courts to dismiss legal actions that challenge a provision of the bill and award legal costs and attorney fees to the defendants. Citing the 11th Amendment, which gives states sovereign immunity, the bill also says the state isn’t subject to a lawsuit for complying with the act — regardless of a contradictory federal ruling.”

But wait, says a gay-rights group. Again, from the Tribune: “Daniel Williams, a legislative specialist for the gay rights group Equality Texas, said the bill would go against legal precedent.

“’This bill is retreading very well-established precedent here. In 1869, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White that no, Texas does may not ignore federal law whenever it wants,’ Williams said. ‘Beyond it ignoring federal law, it would actually punish state employees who follow the law.’”

The setting of a “moral standard” is not at issue here. Adhering to federal law is what’s at stake.

national news, political news, State news

Gay marriage on its way … to Texas?

Do you ever feel as though you’re swimming against a tide that keeps getting stronger while it sucks the energy out of your efforts to fight it?

That’s how I’m feeling with this gay marriage issue.

I’m still grappling with the notion that it’s all right for people of the same sex to marry each other. I’m a traditionalist and my own values make it hard for me to embrace the idea of same-sex marriage as being the same as the marriage I have enjoyed for the past 43-plus years.

OK, I’ve laid down that marker.

I also understand what the law says, what’s in the U.S. Constitution and how all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Thus, it appears that states’ bans on gay marriage appear doomed.

That notion I will accept.

Florida has just begun allowing same-sex couples to marry. Federal judges — those damn “unelected judges,” in the eyes of conservatives — keep overturning state bans on same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Texas has ruled that our state’s ban — written into the Texas Constitution — violates the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause stated in the 14th Amendment. It grants full rights of citizenship to anyone born in the United States with zero regard to that people’s sexual orientation.

All of this makes perfect sense to me. If the states are governed by a federal framework — the Constitution — then the states are obligated to obey the rules set down within that framework.

Does any of this mean that all Americans must embrace the idea of same-sex partners getting married? Honestly, no.

All it means to me is that the law is the law and that states cannot impose their own laws that supersede the Constitution of the United States of America.

That includes bans on same-sex marriage.

I can feel that tide of political and cultural change getting stronger all the time.

 

legal news, national news

Where's the threat to 'traditional marriage'?

So …

The Supreme Court has refused to review challenges to same-sex marriage laws in several states. “Marriage equality” proponents have proclaimed that as a victory, that it shows the highest court in the nation is comfortable with states allowing same-sex unions.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/ar-BB7QehZ

I’ve commented already today on the shifting tide in favor of same-sex marriage.

No doubt we’re going to hear commentary from those who perceive some “threat” to traditional marriage by the expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Allow me this brief look at the so-called threat.

There isn’t any.

I’ve stated already that my wife and I — and I feel comfortable speaking for her on this matter — are quite comfortable with our own union. We sealed it 43 years ago and we’re going quite strong. At no point ever in all those years have we felt threatened by those who choose to bond with others of the same sex. The gay couples we have known have their own lives and we have ours. End of story.

No, the threat to traditional marriage covers a lot more ground than this single issue. It rests with society at large, with laws that make it arguably too easy for couples to end marriages.

My own values are deeply held and are personal in the extreme. They won’t be shaken loose by those of different orientations.

I could bet real American money that I am not alone in believing that same-sex unions pose zero threat by themselves to “traditional marriage.”

Uncategorized

Same-sex marriage is legal

Same-sex marriage is more constitutional than states’ bans against it.

Court after court has ruled as such. The blog post attached to this item wonders why Texas’s attorney general can’t bring himself to recognize the inevitable trend that’s going to make it legal in Texas.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/modern-world

Greg Abbott is likely to become the state’s next governor. As attorney general, he is obligated to defend what the federal judiciary is saying is indefensible: the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The courts are tossing out states’ bans — including the one in Texas — because the bans violate the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment equal protection under the law clause.

The state likely won’t win its appeal on that basis. It will try, though, to persuade federal judges that Texas’s ban is constitutional.

I still struggle a bit with the notion of same-sex marriage. I agree that devoted same-sex couples are entitled to all legal rights as straight couples. Marriage? That particular terminology still bothers me.

The more I hear about courts striking down these bans, the more I am convinced nonetheless that same-sex marriage is more constitutional than the state laws that prevent it.

Paul Burka, the Texas Monthly blogger, wonders why Texas can’t join the 21st century. If the courts keep ruling as they have done, that day might be forced on Texas — and not a moment too soon.

Uncategorized

Same-sex marriage debate gets weird

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has just put forward one of the more, um, interesting arguments opposing same-sex marriage.

It’s noted in a blog posted by Dallas Morning News editorial writer/blogger Jim Mitchell. It quotes a legal brief filed by the AG in defense of Texas’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

“Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does,” the brief reads. “That is enough to supply a rational basis for Texas’s marriage laws.”

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/07/ag-greg-abbott-texas-opposes-gay-marriage-because-the-state-has-an-interest-in-procreation.html/

How about that?

As Mitchell notes correctly, this comes from an individual — Abbott — who proclaims to be opposed to government overreach into people’s private lives. Now he argues that he wants to preserve marriage for the purpose of allowing straight couples to produce children.

Intriguing, yes?

Well, I think so.

I get that same-sex couples cannot produce children the old-fashioned way. I also get that same-sex couples are quite capable of rearing children in loving homes, that they can promote “family values” and be caring partners to each other and set perfectly legitimate examples of fidelity to their children to emulate.

So, I am not sure I quite get Abbott’s reasoning as he argues against a federal judge’s declaration that the Texas constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the laws of the land.

Mitchell adds: “The state has no role in procreation. That’s a slippery slope that conservative and liberals should find common ground. You can’t argue in favor of getting the government out of the lives of consenting adults and then turn around and claim that the state wants more children.”

Do you think this might become a campaign issue as Abbott seeks to become the next governor of Texas? I’ll say “yes.”

Uncategorized

States' rights or federal authority over marriage?

1 Comment

The debate over same-sex marriage keeps roiling.

I continue to straddle the fence on whether to endorse the notion of full “marriage” for same-sex couples, even though my view of it is “evolving” toward favoring it. I do understand the reason that federal courts are tossing out states’ prohibitions against same-sex couples tying the knot, as in getting married.

The argument against the courts getting involved usually centers on states’ rights. Foes of same-sex marriage — or “marriage equality,” as proponents call it — keep harping on a misconstrued notion that since sexual orientation isn’t mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution that judges have no jurisdiction or legal standing to comment on these issues.

The latest such contention came from an editorial published Sunday in my local newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News. “The 14th Amendment (read it) does not specifically mention marriage — gay or straight,” the editorial notes. OK, I then read the amendment, for the umpteenth time. Here’s part of what it says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States …” It goes on at the end of that section to say states cannot “deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

No, the amendment doesn’t mention gay marriage. I’d bet some serious dough, however, that the founders deliberately intended to include all citizens regardless of any orientation — sexual or religious, to name just two — under the equal protection clause. Gay couples are seeking to be recognized as being equally entitled to all the rights guaranteed straight couples. That’s a fairly uncomplicated proposal. I’m quite certain the U.S. Constitution covers it nicely in that pesky 14th Amendment.

Texas’s state constitutional amendment “abridges” those rights, a federal court judge has ruled. The ruling is under appeal. Gay marriage isn’t legal in Texas, at least not yet.

This curious argument by foes of “marriage equality” that states’ rights trump the U.S. Constitution on issues not delineated by the founders doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

I’m guessing the surest way for those who oppose same-sex marriage to have the practice banned entirely in this country is to campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that supersedes the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that. A majority of Americans now favors same-sex marriage.

Me? I’m still grappling with it.

Uncategorized

Pragmatism drives Brewer veto of SB 1062

Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is nothing if not a pragmatist.

The Republican showed the world this evening that money speaks volumes when a state’s economic recovery is at stake.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/arizona-governor-jan-brewer-vetoes-anti-gay-bill-n39666

Brewer vetoed Senate Bill 1062, the hastily drawn legislation that would have enabled businesses to deny service to people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Someone could refuse to serve a meal to a gay couple, for example. SB 1062 proponents said it protected people’s religious liberty by enabling them to invoke their faith as a reason to discriminate against gay people.

Brewer’s veto came with a few words about how this bill would create more problems than it purports to solve.

She didn’t invoke some belief in “marriage equality,” which is short hand for supporting the rights of people to marry others of the same sex. No, she instead spoke to the problems that would rain down on Arizona if forces conspired to derail the state’s recovering economy.

Major League Baseball and the National Football League were two of the heavy hitters that threatened some form of economic sanction against the state if SB 1062 became law. That, I submit, is the message that Brewer heeded today with her veto.

That’s all right with me. SB 1062’s major aim was to impose a discriminatory policy.

I understand and totally endorse the concept of religious liberty and the freedom to practice one’s faith. However, embracing religious freedom shouldn’t result in others losing their rights as citizens. SB 1062 sought to deny the rights of others simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. It was wrong.

Gov. Brewer did the right thing today by vetoing it.

Uncategorized

County clerk shows honor and resigns

Roosevelt County (N.M.) Clerk Donna Carpenter has just quit her job and given new meaning to the term “honor.”

http://www.pntonline.com/2013/12/20/roosevelt-county-clerk-resigns/

Carpenter resigned her post because she disagrees with the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision that effectively legalizes same-sex marriage in that state.

Carpenter said she believes more strongly in God’s law than in man’s law. Thus, she quit a job she’d held for only about a year after being elected in 2012.

Why the honor in her quitting?

It’s a matter of principle. She decided she no longer could serve as county clerk if the state’s highest court was going to make her issue marriage licenses against her deeply held religious beliefs.

I cannot quibble with her decision.

I’m not going to enter the discussion over whether I endorse “marriage equality.” I’m still grappling with that in my own heart and head. Donna Carpenter’s decision to resign, though, is a deeply principled one for which she should be applauded.

She could have stayed on, swallowed hard and said, in effect, that while she disagrees with the ruling, she took an oath to follow the laws of the state. Or, she could have kept her job and refused to endorse the ruling issued by the New Mexico court; the result of that would have been a costly and probably futile court battle that would have cost her constituents a boatload of money.

She didn’t. She said she couldn’t follow the law and would surrender the office to someone who could follow it.

Donna Carpenter made an honorable decision.

Uncategorized

Family feud mirrors larger GOP split

Two women from one prominent political family are sparring publicly over one of the nation’s most sensitive social issues.

It involves gay marriage.

One of the women is gay; the other is straight. The gay sister, Mary Cheney, is married to her wife and is the mother of two children. The straight sister, Liz Cheney, is running for the U.S. Senate seat from Wyoming against a long-time incumbent, fellow Republican Mike Enzi.

Cheney Family Airs Gay-Marriage Feud on Facebook

Liz Cheney has come out strongly against gay marriage. Her sister Mary has challenged Liz’s views, saying she is out of step with history.

Oh, have I mentioned these women come from a prominent political family? Their dad is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who supports gay marriage; their mother is Lynne Cheney, who’s served as top adviser to GOP presidents going back to Ronald Reagan.

The women’s differences over gay marriage — or “marriage equality,” as proponents like to call it — serves as an interesting metaphor for the divisions that exist within the larger political party. The right wingers are unwilling to compromise on this or any issue with the “establishment wing” of their party.

No one can accuse the Cheney family of being squishy on their conservatism. They all come from sturdy right-wing stock.

The sisters’ split reminds me a bit of a similar split within Ronald Reagan’s family, particularly between the two sons — Michael and Ron. Michael Reagan is a star on the conservative talk-radio circuit; Ron tilts considerably to the left and is a frequent guest of liberal TV talk show hosts. The third surviving Reagan child, daughter Patti, is aligned with brother Ron.

Has anyone seen the Reagan brothers in the same room lately?

Back to the Cheneys …

If anyone needs a lesson on the split among Republicans, they can look no further than the strain developing between two strong-willed women.