It was warm, but not as hot as it had been all week. When I arrived a crowd was just starting to build but by the end of the protest there had been well over 200 hundred people participating. In a community like Fresno that says alot! We are an agricultural based community and tend to keep to ourselves. Things like gay marriage and equality are hot buttons even in here. The support for this event was amazing. It was electrical and energized. The best part is people on both sides were polite. Nothing got out of hand. - Audra Taylor
The issue of marriage equality is currently a hot topic. Political leaders, celebrities and proponents from many disciplines are publicly lending their support in favor of equal treatment, and admirably so. These people are making the headlines. These headlines, however, are illustrating a growing trend. Everybody’s calling it “gay marriage.” I’m asking, by using the phrase “gay marriage,” are we advancing the cause in search of equality? We must remember; we are pursuing marriage equality as a human right, not as a gay right.
We are all familiar with the fact that “gay” used to mean “happy” in everyday language. The meaning of the word has undergone notable change. It means something completely different to its traditional definition. And some of us are fond of our “traditional definitions.” Just ask any marriage equality opponent. “It has always been between a man and a woman,” they’ll tell you to justify their opposition. Is it ironic then that the word “gay” can illustrate how definitions can change? Possibly, and perhaps inadvertently we’re taking it too far with our “gay marriage” campaign.
It is worth considering that phrasing it “gay marriage” may be operating to strengthen the illusion that some narrow minds are under. Those same minds see equality as a threat. They think the institution of marriage is in danger. What they don’t understand is that marriage won’t change. What will change is who enjoys the privilege and legal right to enter it. Our celebrated institution will remain the same. It will simply be available to us all, regardless of sexual orientation, to guard our committed love with the law. We won’t have “gay marriages.” We’ll have marriages, just like now.
While today's ruling is a victory for equality advocates, questions about the law's premise remain to be decided by the Supreme Court.
For the dwindling number of supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Clinton-era federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, the bad news Thursday from Boston actually could have been much worse.
Yes, it's true that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously struck down the guts of the law -- the first federal appeals court in the country to do so. The ruling declares that Section 3 of the law cannot be used to deprive lawfully-married same-sex couples of the federal rights and benefits to which lawfully married opposite-sex couples are given. The case now is styled Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't Health and Human Services.
Yes, it's true that two of the three judges who issued Thursday's ruling are Republican appointees. Judge Michael Boudin is a nominee of the first President Bush. Judge Juan Torruella is a nominee of President Reagan. When you factor in U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, the Nixon appointee who first struck down the law in 2010, it means that three of the four judges responsible for DOMA's current predicament are GOP infused.
And, yes, it's true, the ruling jeopardizes enforcement of the federal Marriage Act all across the country. Sure, it can still be cited (in the 1st Circuit and elsewhere) to deny same-sex couples their benefits. But those denials are more legally suspect today than they were yesterday. The Supreme Court now must resolve this conflict -- and today's decision virtually guarantees that the justices will have to act sooner rather than later.
All that is true. But the language of the 1st Circuit's 35-page ruling is no Jeremiad against DOMA or opponents of same-sex marriage. It is not something likely to be as widely quoted as other recent rulings over same-sex marriage in America. And it clearly does not purport to be the definitive or last word on the subject. We have here instead a modest ruling which accomplishes four significant things at the same time (something, not incidentally, that intermediate appellate courts are supposed to do as they funnel cases up the ladder to Washington).
A federal appeals court said Tuesday it will not rehear arguments on California's Proposition 8, meaning the final word on the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage will likely come from the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in February that the ban discriminated against gays and lesbians and served no purpose other than to “lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians.” It rejected the key argument by ban supporters that Prop 8 furthered "responsible procreation."
Prop 8 backers appealed the ruling to the full 9th Circuit, which on Tuesday declined to review it with a larger panel of 11 judges. That clears the way for Prop 8 backers to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They have 90 days to do so.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on Saturday announced its backing of same-sex marriage, more than a week after President Barack Obama also expressed support for the issue.
"The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure political, social and economic equality of all people," Roslyn M. Brock, chairman of the NAACP's board of directors, said in a statement.
She added: "We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law."
Following Obama's announcement last week, speculation swirled over whether his decision would spark political backlash among some in the black evangelical community, which has traditionally been against same-sex marriage.