FEDERAL JUDGES USING SUPREME COURT’S DOMA RULING TO HALT STATE STATUES PROTECTING MARRIAGE

News From An Uncompromising Biblical Worldview

Heather Clark, Christian News Network — In what some are describing as a ‘reverberation’ throughout America, several federal judges across the nation are citing the Supreme Court decision that struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as their basis to halt state statutes pertaining to marriage protections.

As previously reported, last month, a federal judge in Ohio granted two homosexual men an injunction against a state law that prohibits the recognition of same-sex “marriage” ceremonies performed in other states. The men had traveled to Maryland after the state began issuing licenses, but found that their home state of Ohio would not recognize the union.

Therefore, they sued the state, and Judge Timothy Black, an Obama appointee, put a temporary halt on the law as the case moves forward, citing the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling in U.S. v. Windsor.

“The purpose served by treating same-sex married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples is the same improper purpose that failed in Windsor and in Romer: ‘to impose inequality’ and to make gay citizens unequal under the law,” Black wrote. “Although the law has long recognized that marriage and domestic relations are matters generally left to the states, the restrictions imposed on marriage by states, however, must nonetheless comply with the [U.S.] Constitution.”

Similarly, in Michigan, two separate federal judges granted injunctions against state statutes pertaining to homosexuality, citing the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in June. One of the cases surrounds two lesbians who are seeking to marry and adopt children.

“Construing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, and in view of the Supreme Court’s current statement of the law,” Judge Bernard Friedman wrote, “this court cannot say that plaintiffs’ claims for relief are without plausibility. Plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court and they shall have it.”

A second case dealt with two men who were challenging the state’s denial of benefits to the partners of homosexuals.

“[I]t is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose — indeed, perhaps the sole purpose — of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees,” stated Judge David Lawson.

He mocked the state’s defense as being “close to striking [the court] with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.”

Therefore, just a few months out from the ruling, some speculate that the Supreme Court decision–although centered on a federal matter–could have an impact nationwide on the states.

“It’s a pattern that’s emerging–and it’s striking,” professor David Cruz from the University of Southern California told the Wall Street Journal. “Judges are embracing [the Supreme Court's] principles.”

“Needless to say, if other courts follow this lead, we’ll have coast-to-coast legal gay marriage as a matter of Full Faith and Credit with the only limitation on gay couples [being] their ability to travel to a pro-SSM state temporarily to get hitched,” concurred the website Hot Air.

A number of similar lawsuits are currently pending across the country, including in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia, with the ACLU and others vowing to file numerous other legal challenges nationwide.

“It’s unfortunate that there are people out there who want to ban this state from defining marriage as it has been defined by virtually everyone since the beginning of recorded history,” the Kentucky Family Association told reporters. » Full Article

» Christian News Network
» Heather Clark | Article Archive

---

Other Breaking News Items On Christian News Network

» SURVIVOR OF BOTCHED ABORTION EXCELS AT HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLING DESPITE HANDICAPS

Despite being maimed from birth due to a botched abortion attempt, a young man from northeastern Indiana is currently excelling at high school wrestling matches.

» FORMER OBAMA ADVISOR TO HEAD U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT’S OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Wednesday the formation of a new Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives in the U.S. State Department, as well as his first appointee as overseer.

» ATHEISTS LEVEL NEW ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ALABAMA SCHOOL DISTRICT WHERE ‘PRAYER CARAVAN’ SCHEDULED

A nationally-recognized atheist activist organization has leveled new accusations against an Alabama School District that has been in the headlines over a prayer event scheduled for this week.

IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE

“Keep Looking Up”

“Gary looks at the Supreme Court ruling on The Defense of Marriage Act.”

» Prophecy In The News
» Prophecy In The News | YouTube

About Prophecy In The News
For over 30 years, Prophecy in the News has been at the cutting edge of Premillennial prophetic interpretation. Gary Stearman brings thoughtful and relevant Bible exposition, plus an exciting line-up of contemporary guest scholars and authors.

COSTS FOR KILLING DOMA 'UNKNOWN'

“Sexualizing the military has done little to improve the military institution but has rather undermined once high military standards and had an adverse effect on combat effectiveness.”

Gina Loudon, WND — The benefits now granted to same-sex couples as a result of the Supreme Court decision striking down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act will put an immediate strain on the defense budget, warns the Center for Military Readiness.

After the ruling Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that all benefits given to military spouses would now be extended to same-sex couples.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, said the “ruling will have immediate consequences in America’s armed forces, which employ personnel from all states and grant extensive marriage benefits under federal law.”

Donnelly said the U.S. military budget will be under pressure because of the Supreme Court’s actions, but it is hard to calculate how much.

“No one has estimated what the impact will be,” said Donnelly, “especially during a time when sequestration cuts, large and small, are affecting military families worldwide.”

DOMA was passed in 1996 by a bipartisan majority in Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. It specified that where federal law was concerned, “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

The Supreme Court this week ruled the definition an unconstitutional violation of “equal rights.”

The sequester cuts have already disproportionately affected the defense budget. Fifty percent of the cuts prescribed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 came from defense even though it is less than one-fifth of the federal budget.

“Now that marriage law has been redefined for federal purposes,” Donnelly warns, “the potential cost of extending military family benefits on an ‘equal’ and ‘consistent’ policy basis is unknown.”

Donnelly points out that the military did not have to be affected by the ruling.

“If short-sighted, naive members of Congress had not rushed to repeal the 1993 law regarding gays in the military (Section 654, Title 10), [the DOMA] ruling would not have affected the armed forces,” she said.

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 was passed on a near party-line vote during the lame-duck session of Congress after the sweeping Republican victories in the 2010 midterm election.

According to Donnelly, the combination of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal and the Defense of Marriage Act ruling this week extend the full range of housing, education, medical and travel benefits to same-sex couples. All of it will be paid for out of a military budget already decimated by the sequester.

Active-duty pay, benefits and family programs have largely been spared by the sequester cuts, but furloughs of civilian Department of Defense employees are directly affecting military families. Services on military bases staffed by civilian workers, including schools and medical facilities, are providing fewer services as the furloughs continue.

In addition, many spouses of active-duty military members are civilian DOD workers. To help with service member retention, military spouses are given priority in hiring for civilian DOD positions. As military benefits begin to go to same-sex spouses, more furloughs can be expected. That translates to less pay for military families and fewer services on bases.

The Center for Military Readiness cites the Comprehensive Review Working Group in predicting another wave of beneficiaries who will be coming in on the heels of the same-sex spouses.

The CRWG was created by the Department of Defense to conduct a review of the issues associated with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. The CRWG concluded that the extension of military benefits to committed same-sex couples would create “a new inequity – between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples.”

The next groups the military expects to grant benefits are opposite-sex unmarried couples and committed same-sex couples.

Donnelly laments the lack of planning and consideration given to the extension of benefits to same-sex spouses.

“There were no hearings to seriously examine the full ramifications of repeal, including new entitlements that are now about to drain shrinking defense family budgets,” she said.

Col. Ron Ray, former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs), points out that “the move to ‘homosexualize’ the military has been a top priority of the gay rights political agenda dating back to 1972.”

And he said it may get even more costly.

“Sexualizing the military has done little to improve the military institution but has rather undermined once high military standards and had an adverse effect on combat effectiveness,” he said. “Sexualization of the military has proven to distract from the national security mission, combat readiness and may cost America more than an increasing military budget.” » Full Article

» WND
» Dr. Gina Loudon, Ph.D. | Article Archive

About the Author
Gina Loudon, Ph.D., is host of "The Dr. Gina Show" and a national speaker, analyst and author. She has appeared or been cited by the BBC, ABC, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, CNN, New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News, Fox Business, The Hill, "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart and many others. Loudon is credited as one of the "100 founding members" of the tea-party movement, founder of Arizona BUYcott and originator of the field of policology – the nexus of politics and psychology. She is the co-author of "Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of Our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor." Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

---

Other Breaking News Items On WND

» Next Up In America, Polygamy?
'As consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose'

» Egyptian Christian To U.S.: Quit Helping Muslims
'They are supporting terrorists to take over the country'

» Lawsuit Exposes 'Muslim Mafia' Shell Game
Case 'brings to light CAIR's elaborate ties to terrorism'

AMERICA IS NOW “OFFICIALLY” SODOM AND GOMORRAH

Informing and Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Tim Powers, The Western Center For Journalism — The recent US Supreme Court decision recognizing gay marriage, I believe, has sealed our fate as a country in the eyes of God. The Muslim/communist plant, Barack Hussein Obama, had announced during his first term that we were no longer a Christian nation, and he meant it.

What the communist left fails to realize is that we were all created by God in his image. Therefore, we are bound to abide by the spiritual laws that he has set forth in the Holy scriptures. God was extremely clear on this issue:

Gen 19:5-8: “and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’ But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, ‘Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.

Lev 18:22-23: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Lev 20:13: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”

Rom 1:26-27: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

As you can see, God’s word on this is as clear as a sun-filled day. Unfortunately, the leaders of our day have been deceived. Two centuries ago, when our Founders laid out the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, their intent was not to overrule the spiritual laws of God, but to apply them to the foundation of a fledgling government. The Declaration of Independence is specifically clear on this:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

America has been lied to and deceived for many years on not only this issue, but others as well. The communist left have turned their backs on God in search of a lie known as secular humanism, believing that man is the center of the universe and creator of all things. This idea has been promoted by no other than the leftist idol, Saul Alinsky, whom Barack Hussein Obama has studied at length. In Alinsky’s book (the leftist bible), called “Rules for Radicals”, he gives credit in the preface to “the first radical- Lucifer”, otherwise known as Satan.

While Biblical scholars try to figure out when and where the anti-Christ will arrive, I believe that he has already been here: Saul Alinsky. People have said that it could have been Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Che, and so on. These people all practiced absolute evil as tools for Satan, but could never change hearts, minds, and possibly even souls the way that the works of Alinsky have and continue to do today. We must stay vigilant and obedient to God. America MUST repent or suffer the same judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah. As always, fellow Patriots, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings. » Full Article

» The Western Center For Journalism
» WCJournalism Videos
» Tim Powers | Article Archive

---

More Commentary At The Western Center For Journalism

» Congressman: Time To Take On Obama ID Fraud Issue
Way to go, Congressman Louie Gohmert!!

» Charity Organization Bestows “Warmonger Of The Decade Award” Upon Obama
TORONTO, ON, June 28, 2013 – An international organization dedicated to raising awareness of the plight of baby girls at risk for female infanticide in the People’s Republic of China announced this week that it is awarding American President Barack Obama with their “Warmonger of the Decade Award,” said Erik Rush, Vice-President of Administration and Strategic Alliances for Pink Pagoda Girls, LLC.

» Obama’s Top General: Hero Or Traitor?
One of the highest ranking military officers in the US is under investigation for allegedly leaking top secret information about a cyber attack on Iran’s nuclear program, according to reports.

RAMIFICATIONS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION ON DOMA AND PROP 8

Christian Information Radio

Host: Jim Schneider
The Crosstalk Radio Talk Show is heard each weekday on over 90 radio outlets across America and worldwide on the Internet. Crosstalk covers the issues that affect our world, our nation, our families and the Christian church from a perspective centered in the Word of God. Whether we discuss the economy, the political scene, the continuing moral collapse of our nation, legislation that affects the family, or the state of evangelicalism, our authority is found in the unchanging standard of the Holy Scriptures. Veteran co-hosts Dr. Vic Eliason and Jim Schneider have worked as a team for over 20 years to bring solid information to the body of Christ.

Guest: » Sam Rohrer - Pennsylvania Pastors Network

Air Date: June 27, 2013

Show Description:
Sam Rohrer spent 9 terms in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He led the opposition to Pennsylvania’s explosive growth of spending, regulations and unconstitutional mandates. As a home-schooling father for over 20 years, he led the statewide efforts for positive changes in the Pennsylvania home school law. In 2011 he served as State Director for Americans for Prosperity. Today he serves as the Leader of the Pennsylvania Pastor’s Network.

This edition of Crosstalk continued to look at the two Supreme Court decisions dealing with the Defense of Marriage Act as well as California's Proposition 8.

Sam noted that yesterday's decisions were a constitutional "overreach"; a "judicial activism" and "judicial supremacy" in that the Supreme Court overruled the legitimate actions of Congress in establishing DOMA in the first place. Their actions also violated the right of California citizens to change their laws as they did in establishing Prop 8.

Listen to this discussion as Sam looks ahead at the wide ranging impact this will have, not only on the future of marriage, but how this will shape our religious and constitutional rights.

» More Information & Audio Options



» VCY America, Inc. - Christian Information Radio
» Official Crosstalk America Facebook Page
» Crosstalk America YouTube Channel

‘THIS IS THE THING REVOLUTIONS ARE MADE OF’

Top Christian Lawyer:
Justices' Marriage 'Decision Crosses The Line'

WND TV, Radio America — The Supreme Court had no reason to rule on the merits of the Defense of Marriage Act, but the majority opinion lays the groundwork for a sweeping, national legalization of same-sex marriage in the near future, warns Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed same-sex marriage advocates a pair of victories. In addition to dismissing a defense of California’s traditional marriage amendment based on legal standing, it struck down a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, as unconstitutional that allowed federal benefits only for spouses in heterosexual marriages. That’s because the 1996 federal law recognized marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. The Court preserved the DOMA provision that allows states to refuse recognizing homosexual marriages performed in other states.

“Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. “DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.”

Kennedy was joined on the opinion by the Court’s four liberal justices.

Staver blasts the majority for ruling on the merits at all, saying the case never should have come this far since the Obama administration refused to defend DOMA. The government, the plaintiff and the lower courts all agreed on the earlier verdict, so Staver said this matter never should have reached the Supreme Court.

“The parties all agree that the ruling below is correct. Therefore, it should never have gone to the court of appeals, and certainly the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. This is just an advisory opinion,” Staver said. “This is unprecedented that the Court took this step to actually even decide the merits of the case.

“And then when it decided the merits of the case, it used words such as ‘bigotry,’ ‘hostility’ and ‘demeaning,’ referring to the Equal Protection Clause but it never did an equal protection analysis,” he said. “Every Equal Protection Clause analysis has to at least determine several things. One, is the so-called right that you’re after one that is rooted in history and part of our idea of ordered liberty? Here they’re asking for the right to same-sex marriage. Has that been rooted in our history? Is it part of ordered liberty? The answer to that is obviously no. The reason they didn’t address that question is because they would have to have come to an opposite conclusion. They skipped it. It’s unbelievable.

“This is just five people that have written a piece of opinion and issued it under the guise of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it has no grounding in the constitutional text or in the history of its previous precedent,” Staver said.

Some defenders of traditional marriage say today’s decisions weren’t a total loss because the Court refrained from issuing a nationwide pronouncement in favor of homosexual marriage. Staver is not among them. He sees the DOMA ruling as the precursor to such a ruling in a future case.

“In the short term, it’s not the blanket same-sex marriage across the country. That’s something that we actually could have had from this case today. On the other hand, this is the 1972 contraception for individual cases that ultimately laid the foundation for the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

“This is the groundwork for same-sex marriage that the court laid today. There’s no question about it,” said Staver. “The way that they wrote this decision, while it doesn’t put same-sex marriage across the country, they are telegraphing that’s what they want to do. And they will open up the floodgates of litigation, and they are begging for another case to come to the high court.

“This decision crosses the line, and the people have to respond or they’re going to be under a ruling oligarchy of five individuals that have untethered themselves. They’ve cut the line between themselves and the Constitution,” Staver said.

Staver was a strong supporter of Proposition 8 in California, but believes the unusual collaboration of justices in the majority was correct in dismissing the appeal based on standing since California officials refused to defend their own law.

Justices Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan rejected the standing of the traditional marriage supporter defending the constitutional amendment. Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor and Kennedy dissented. » Full Article


» WND

---

Other Breaking News Items On WND

» Black Robes ‘Delegitimize’ Supreme Court
Marriage-case decision 'a pure invention of a handful of justices'

» Pelosi: ‘Who Cares’ What She Thinks?
Dismisses congresswoman’s concern for marriage

» Limbaugh: 'Looks Like Doom, Unavoidable Doom'
Radio giant wonders if America can be rescued

RUSH: MONTAGE OF OBAMA OPPOSING GAY MARRIAGE, WHEN HE WAS A BIGOT

America's Number One Radio Talk Show

RUSH: Here’s Barack Obama. We have a montage here of President Obama back in 2004 on Channel 11 in Chicago, August 17th of 2008 with the pastor Rick Warren, November of 2007 with I don’t know who (I guess it’s still Rick Warren), October 26, 2004, and December 22, 2000. We have how many different bites? We got one … two … three … four … five — five different occasions of Barack Obama speaking when he was a bigot, when he opposed gay marriage. This is back when he was a bigot, just year and a half ago…
» Read Full Transcript @ RushLimbaugh.com

» Daily Rushbo
» The Rush Limbaugh Show

---

More Related Clips On Rushbo

» RUSH: 5 Libs And Justice Kennedy Couldn’t Wait To Insult Supporters Of Traditional Marriage

» RUSH: Supreme Court Used ‘Character Assassination’ In DOMA Decision

» Limbaugh: Scalia’s Dissent Of DOMA Is ‘Breathtaking’

LEVIN ‘THE GREAT ONE’: JUNE 26, 2013

LEVIN ON THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT DECISION:
‘IT’S AN ABOMINATION’

Excerpt From Full Show:

MARK LEVIN: The [DOMA] decision is essentially incomprehensible. No it’s understandable in terms of its flow. Substantively, It’s an abomination. » RightVID.com

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show: The Supreme Court made its decision reversing the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as on Proposition 8 in California and Mark explains that we now have the Courts taking power away from the states to decide issues. The Supreme Court is now involved with regulating and making law on culture and culture wars in America. Mark explains federalism, if we believe the states have power or authority for themselves or not, as well as the subject of nullification. Mark says this isn't judicial review, it's judicial tyranny. Also, Senator Ted Cruz calls in and talks about DOMA and how the Immigration Bill will pass the Senate but hopefully the House doesn't allow it through. » Click for Full Recap and Show Notes

  Full Show:



Mark Levin has become one of the hottest properties in Talk radio, his top-rated show on WABC is now syndicated nationally. He is also one of the top new authors in the conservative political arena.

» Listen Live Weekdays
» The Mark Levin Show
» The Official Mark Levin Audio Rewind
» 2013 Show Archives

BREAKING: SUPREME COURT 5-4 MAKES GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA

“WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT? ARE YOU SERIOUS?”

“Overturning DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act 1996) and the voters of California Proposition 8, gay marriage is almost legal in all of America”

» Paul Begley Prophecy
» Pastor Paul Begley | YouTube
» Coming Apocalypse | Blog Talk Radio

U.S. BRACES FOR HISTORIC SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

This week the Supreme Court will hand down four decisions that will mark a turning point for the United States, and some possible outcomes could even change the course of this country for the rest of our national existence.

Ken Klukowski, Breitbart — The High Court heard 75 cases this year. As this week begins, 64 have been decided, meaning the final 11 will come down this week as the Court concludes its 2012 Term. Seven are run-of-the-mill cases, but the other four are as big as they get.

In terms of turning points, there are two major cases involving race. It’s also noteworthy that both cases were argued by the constitutional law firm Wiley Rein, specifically two of that firm’s partners: Burt Rein and Will Consovoy.

The first is Fisher v. University of Texas. [Full disclosure: at the request of one of the parties, I authored a brief in this case for economists and statisticians.] The petitioners argued that racial preferences in the admissions process at the University of Texas violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Court could narrowly rule in their favor, or it could go so far as to overrule prior cases, especially the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, and rule that racial preferences are always unconstitutional. That is the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and, for me, it is the correct view.

The second is Shelby County v. Holder. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) requires certain states and localities—mostly in the South—to receive permission from a federal court or the U.S. Justice Department before redrawing legislative districts after each census, or changing their voting laws or procedures. In 1966, the Supreme Court held in Katzenbach v. McClung that Section 5’s intrusion into state sovereignty is authorized by the Fifteenth Amendment because of egregious voter suppression in the 1960s. Now that America is a very different place, the justices are considering whether VRA Section 5 is no longer justified by the Constitution.

The last two major cases are the marriage cases. [Full disclosure: at the request of one of the parties, I also coauthored a brief in this litigation for social scientists.]

In both of these cases, there are a couple significant questions of whether they were brought in a fashion that satisfies all the requirements of Article III of the Constitution for the federal courts to properly have jurisdiction over those cases. Thus, there is a very real possibility that one or both cases could be dismissed without any decision on the merits of the case.

However, if the Court does reach the merits, the consequences of the decisions could be extraordinary.

One is U.S. v. Windsor. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) defines marriage for purposes of federal law (such as federal taxes, immigration, and Social Security benefits) as the union of one man and one woman. In Windsor, the Court is considering whether Section 3 violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. If it does, then all federal marriage benefits can now be obtained by homosexual couples and likely polygamous families as well (both native to the U.S., and those seeking to immigrate to this country from Muslim nations where polygamy is legal).

The final big case is nothing short of historic. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution confers the right for any consenting adults to marry. If so, then traditional-marriage laws will be struck down nationwide in the 38 states where they currently exist, and all persons in every state will be able to enter into either homosexual or polygamous marriages. The case directly involved homosexual couples, but if the right is declared to be any union of consenting adults, then if three or more adults all consented to marry each other they would likely have the right to do so.

The Fifth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are center-stage this week. Given that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, school children for generations to come in America will read in their history books about what the Supreme Court does this week, one way or the other. » Full Article

» Breitbart
» Ken Klukowski | Article Archive

About the Author
Ken Klukowski is a national-bestselling author, constitutional lawyer and media contributor. He is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, and a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union. He has also been published by Politico, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal, among other outlets. Klukowski has authored briefs on constitutional issues across the country, including the one adopted by the U.S. district court in striking down Obamacare in its entirety. » Full Bio

---

Related Ken Klukowski Articles On Breitbart

» Supreme Court Hints at Change in Racial Preferences, But No Conservative Win
In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court considered UT’s admissions process, which uses applicants’ race as a factor. The Court held that the Constitution sets a high bar for government’s of race without violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and sent the case back down for another hearing.

» Supreme Court Takes Case on Obama's Presidential Appointment Power
Breitbart News has reported extensively on whether President Barack Obama’s recess appointments (those that do not require Senate confirmation) violate the Constitution.

» Court Reins in Affirmative Action
On Monday, the Supreme Court raised the bar on what government must prove in programs that give preferences based on race, in a surprising 7-1 decision in Fisher v. University of Texas.

Supreme Court Receives Over Two Dozen Briefs Supporting Biblical Marriage For Prop 8, DOMA Cases

News From An Uncompromising Biblical Worldview

Heather Clark, Christian News Network — (Washington, D.C.) Reports indicate that the United States Supreme Court has received over two dozen briefs from legal organizations nationwide expressing their support for Biblical marriage.

As the court is gearing up to hear oral argument next month in the monumental cases regarding California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), attorneys nationwide have been busy working on friend of the court briefs — also known as amicus briefs, to ensure their voice is heard among America’s highest justices. According to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), over 30 supporting briefs have been submitted to the court for both Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. US.. ADF is a part of the legal team for ProtectMarriage.com, the organization behind Proposition 8.

“Marriage between a man and a woman is a universal good that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization,” stated Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks in a recent news release. “Marriage isn’t merely a matter of personal preferences. How we treat marriage has societal consequences. The wisest course, as these briefs demonstrate, is for the court to resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage.”

ADF explains that attorney generals from 19 states have filed joint briefs with the Supreme Court in favor of marriage remaining between a man and woman, and at least four legal organizations discussed the religious liberty concerns that the legalization of homosexual “marriage” would raise.

Additionally, three African American groups explained to the court their belief that homosexuality cannot be compared to matters of race or interracial marriage. Approximately 37 legal scholars contended that the states should have the right to preserve marriage and not be forced to do otherwise, and 17 judges and scholars spoke of how international law does not support redefining marriage. Self-identified homosexual and bisexual individuals even expressed their support for leaving marriage the way it has been from the beginning of creation.

As previously reported, after a week of waiting on a decision from the court, the nine justices on the bench accepted California’s Proposition 8 case last December, as well as a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The main questions before the court are whether states must permit homosexuals to “marry,” and when they do so, whether the federal government can disagree and choose to limit its recognition of marriage to solely the joining together of a husband and wife.

The matter surrounding Proposition 8 hails back to 2008 when voters in California were presented with a ballot initiative asking if residents wished to enshrine marriage in the state as being between a man and woman. The measure, which sought to add an amendment to the state Constitution to protect the Biblical definition of marriage from infringement, passed by five percentage points.

In 2010, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, opining that the law violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker placed a stay on the law, which the Ninth Circuit later upheld. In February of last year, in a 2 to 1 decision, the Ninth Circuit then agreed with Walker after hearing the case in full, resulting in a timely appeal to the nation’s highest court.

The Defense of Marriage Act, the second matter to be decided by the court, was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton in September 1996 after clearing the House and Senate with overwhelming support. In addition to providing a federal definition of marriage, the law bars homosexual relationships from being recognized by the IRS or the Social Security Administration, and also excludes homosexuals that serve as government workers from being recognized as a couple in order to obtain insurance benefits.

The court is scheduled to hear oral argument regarding the cases on March 26. » Read More

» Christian News Network
» Heather Clark Article Archive