Congressional GOP Urges SCOTUS to Uphold Marriage Bans

Proving yet again that they are the enemies of LGBT equality - and total political whores to the Christofascists - Congressional Republicans of both the Senate and House of Representatives filed a brief with the U. S. Supreme Court ("SCOTUS") on Friday urging the Court to uphold state bans on same sex marriage. Among the arguments put forth are that (i) defining marriage should be left to mob majority rule, (ii) the issue is outside the scope of the Equal Protection Clause, (iii) same sex marriage is "too new" and that the Court should use restraint, and (iv) states should be free to refuse to recognize out of state marriages just as they do where one or both of the spouses are under the minimum age.  Among the local members of Congress signing the brief was J. Randy Forbes who ought to resign his seat and become a televangelist or work for a hate group like FRC or AFA.  Here are excerpts from the Washington Blade:

A total of 57 congressional Republicans — including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz — joined forces in a bicameral brief filed on Friday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage.

The 32-page brief — signed by six U.S. senators and 51 U.S. House members — makes the case that state prohibitions on same-sex marriage are constitutional on the basis of principles of federalism, judicial restraint and states’ traditional sovereignty over domestic relations.

At one point, congressional Republicans invoke the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, saying the nationwide ruling on abortion was “widely criticized” for departing from incremental change.

The six senators who signed the brief, in addition to McConnell and Cruz, are Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.). In February, McConnell was tight-lipped when asked by the Washington Blade about his hopes for the marriages cases and non-committal about signing a friend-of-the-court brief.

Among the 51 House members who signed the brief are lawmakers who have a reputation for holding anti-LGBT views, including Reps. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Steve King (R-Iowa), Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), Randy Weber (R-Texas) and Pete Sessions (R-Texas).

Not listed is House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Standing in contrast to this brief is a filing from 211 congressional Democrats — 167 House members and 44 senators — calling on the Supreme Court to find a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. Even though the Democrats are at their smallest minority ever in Congress since the early 20th century, the number of lawmakers on the Democrats’ brief is nearly four times the number on the Republican brief.

6th Circuit Issues Batshit Crazy Opinion Upholding Marriage Ban

6th Circuit Panel - Judge Daughtrey is at left.  Assholes are at center and right

Because the Supreme Court left intact rulings by the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals striking down same-sex marriage bans in those five states, those appeals courts’ decisions applied to six other states in those three circuits: West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. In a ruling that ought to terrify minorities of all stripes, by a 2 to one ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that minority rights can in effect be granted or denied based on the vote of the majority through the "democratic process."  Under the Court's reasoning, state constitutions - and by extension, the Federal Constitution - can be amended to strip the rights of minorities.  Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Hispanics, and so forth all should be very concerned by the reasoning of the Court.  Their rights, like gay rights are according to the majority ruling subject to the whims and prejudices of the majority of voters.  While the Christofascists are jumping for joy at the ruling - hate merchants Brian Brown and Tony Perkins seemingly are near orgasm - longer term they should be quaking: the day is coming when whites and Christian (certainly conservative Christians) will be in the minority.  Applied to its logical limits, the 6th Circuit ruling would allow the non-white, non-Christofascist majority of the future to strip the "godly folk" of their civil rights and treat them as they have so foully treated others (talk about Karma being a bitch). The ruling is so insane that it's hard to know if the majority wanted to be remembered in the same category as those judges that decided the Dred Scott ruling in the 1800's or if they are seeking to force the U.S. Supreme Court to make marriage equality nationwide.  Metro Weekly looks at the bizarre ruling.  Here are highlights:

In a 2-1 decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are constitutional. The decision reverses rulings by federal district courts striking down same-sex marriage bans in those four states.

“In just eleven years, nineteen States and a conspicuous District, accounting for nearly forty-five percent of the population, have exercised their sovereign powers to expand a definition of marriage that until recently was universally followed going back to the earliest days of human history. That is a difficult timeline to criticize as unworthy of further debate and voting,” wrote Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton for the majority. “When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

Under Judge Sutton's reasoning, schools would perhaps still be segregated and interracial marriage bans might still exist.   One judge dissented and called out the majority for their closed mindedness and, I would argue, bigotry.  Here's more from Metro Weekly:

Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey dissented.

“The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy,” Daughtrey wrote in her dissent. “But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. “

“The legacies of Judges Deborah Cook and Jeffrey Sutton will forever be cemented on the wrong side of history,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement.

The decision by the 6th Circuit marks the first time a federal appeals court has upheld a state ban on same-sex marriage and presents a split among the circuit courts, which could encourage the Supreme Court to once again take up the issue of same-sex marriage and decide whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in September that if the 6th Circuit allowed same-sex marriage bans to stand “there will be some urgency” for the Supreme Court to step in.

Because the Supreme Court left intact rulings by the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals striking down same-sex marriage bans in those five states, those appeals courts’ decisions applied to six other states in those three circuits: West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. 

Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down; Judge Eviserates Mark Regnerus

Yet another domino fell yesterday as a federal court in Michigan struck down that state's ban on same sex marriage.  Making the ruling even more wonderful was the fact that the court's ruling eviscerated Mark Regnerus' "expert" testimony and trashed his right wing funded "study."  As I have noted before, one has to wonder when the University of Texas is going to find a way to ditch Regnerus who is harming the university's reputation as a reputable institution of learning and integrity.  Meanwhile, three Michigan counties intend to marry same sex couples today! Here is a portion of the Court's decision that rips Regnerus to shreds:

Although Regnerus touted the NFSS as one of the few studies to use a large representative pool of participants drawn from a random population-based sample, other sociological and demographic experts, including Rosenfeld and Gates, heavily criticized the study on several grounds. First, it failed to measure the adult outcomes of children who were actually raised in same-sex households. This is because the participants’ household histories revealed that many parental same-sex romantic relationships lasted for only brief periods of time.  And many of the participants never lived in a same-sex household at all.

"The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 'study' was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it 'essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society' and which 'was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.'

While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this 'study,' he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in general."

Ouch!!!   The Court when in to state that the religious beliefs and convictions of some citizens cannot deny other citizens of equal civil law rights.  I can already hear the Christofascists whining that they are being persecuted because they will no longer be allowed to persecute others. The Detroit Free Press has more details.  Here are highlights:

In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman Friday struck down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony, just like their heterosexual counterparts.

Just hours later, Washtenaw, Muskegon and Oakland counties announced they’ll open their clerk’s offices to issue marriage licenses on Saturday.

“Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage,” Friedman wrote in his 31-page ruling. “Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”

Friedman, who declared Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, went a step further than other judges across the country who have made similar decisions.  Friedman did not stay his ruling.

That prompted Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette to file an emergency stay request to prevent gay couples from marrying right away. That includes the two plaintiffs in the case: Hazel Park nurses April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who fought for the right to marry and adopt each other’s special needs children.

“It’s just amazing,” said DeBoer, who wiped tears and hugged her partner after learning of Friedman’s ruling. “This is what we’ve wanted for our family and families like ours …we are just so happy ... We got our day in court and we won.”

In his 31-page ruling, Friedman heavily criticized the state’s position that the will of the voters should have been upheld, noting that just because voters approve something doesn’t make it right, especially when it violates the Constitution.

“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to ‘the will of the people,’ state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people.

“Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.”

Unlike most federal judges who have taken up the gay-marriage issue, Friedman opted last fall to hold a trial and give both sides the chance to present their arguments and scientific evidence.

The state’s experts said that their studies show that children of same-sex couples have poorer outcomes than kids raised by married moms and dads.  Friedman didn’t find the state’s experts credible, stating in his ruling that the testimony of one state witness was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” He said the state’s four witnesses “clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields.”

Michigan Gay Marriage Trial Begins - Experts Bash Christofascists' Claims

As noted recently, Michigan's same sex marriage ban which was passed in 2004 is being challenged in federal court in Detroit and the case will pit legitimate medical and mental health professionals against far right quacks and disgraced researchers such as Mark Regnerus who will claim that same sex parenting is "bad for children."  The trial began yesterday with experts testifying that the Christofascist arguments are without merit and, basically lies.   The defenders of the ban are trotting out the usual reasons to uphold the ban: gays cannot procreate, children "need a mother and father," and mob majority rule motivated by what "God wants." In short, the state is making the same arguments that were rejected in United States v. Windsor to try to justify DOMA.   Here are excerpts from the Detroit News on the first day of trial:

Detroit — Research shows a wide variety in how men and woman parent, but their gender is irrelevant to child outcomes, an expert testified Tuesday in a federal court trial challenging Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage and adoption law.

“Both men and women do the same kinds of things. They can engage in the same kind of behavior,” psychologist David Brodzinksy testified in U.S District Court on Tuesday. “It’s not the gender of the parents that matters, it’s the quality of the care.”

Brodzinsky, an expert in adoption, foster care and same-sex parenting, said children of gay and lesbians show no discernible difference in outcome and general characteristics compared with children of heterosexual couples.

“Moms and dads are important as parents. They are not important as males and females,” he said.

The testimony came as part of a lawsuit brought by lawyers for a Hazel Park lesbian couple who are challenging Michigan’s law that does not allow same-sex couples to adopt each other’s children.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, both nurses, amended their lawsuit against the state to include a challenge against Michigan’s ban on gay marriage. The ban was approved by Michigan voters in 2004.

Assistant Attorney General Kristin Heyse defended the state’s ban on same-sex marriage and adoption, saying this case is about the will of the people, the 2.7 million Michigan voters who defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Meanwhile, a few dozen protesters on both sides of the issue, including Jesse Bacon of Roseville, held signs near the courthouse Tuesday.

Bacon had been out since 8 a.m. showing her support of striking down the same-sex marriage ban.

“It is not religious for me. It is political,” Bacon said. “The Constitution offers equal protection and rights to all U.S. citizens.”

Pastor Rex Evans of First Free Will Baptist Church in Ypsilanti supports upholding the same-sex marriage ban and said he was out Tuesday to exercise his freedom of speech, just as those who want to see it struck down.  “The people of the state spoke in 2004,” Evans said. “I am standing up for what God wants us to do.”

 

Religion has no place in the civil laws and Pastor Evans needs to get his head out of his ass.  Moreover, if folks like Evans and their churches continue to interfere with the civil laws, they need to lose their tax-exempt status.  Taxpayers should not be forced to indirectly subsidize hate, ignorance and bigotry.