Homosexual activists achieved historic gains in the November 2012 election in the states of Washington, Maine and Maryland. These three notoriously liberal states passed laws extending marriage benefits to homosexual relationships by four to six percentage points. But will these legal victories ultimately deny them the sweeping Supreme Court decision they long for?
The current conundrum regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage is what happens when church and state are mixed -- the topics become confusing and confused.
Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed for the first time to take on the issue of gay marriage. No matter how it rules in the two cases it will hear next spring, polling data suggest it is only a matter of time before legal recognition of same-sex unions is the norm throughout the country.
"We don't need you, so shut up!" That's the message the Obama administration has sent loud and clear to America's Roman Catholics.
When Thomas More was in the Tower of London waiting to be tried for refusing to take an oath that claimed Henry VIII was the supreme authority over the church in England, he explained to one of his daughters why it did not matter to him if almost every other man in England was willing to take that oath.
When Tim Geithner whipped out his pocket Constitution in May to address the debt ceiling issue, the rivers in Hades must have been packed with ice skaters.
On April 25, gay-rights advocates -- led by the Human Rights Campaign -- scored a victory after the HRC applied pressure on a law firm hired to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman and denies federal benefits to same-sex partners.
A major law firm has caved to pressure from militant homosexual activists, and one of America’s top Supreme Court lawyers resigned from that firm rather than abandon principle. That lawyer is former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, and this is a story that everyone who values the rule of law needs to understand.
NEWS BRIEFS: House chooses high-profile attorney to defend DOMA
It was never an easy relationship. For a while, though, the Defense of Marriage Act and the Obama administration managed to live together.
During his campaign, Candidate Barack Obama repeatedly cited his opposition to same sex marriage. On the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential Survey, he stated, "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."
President Obama has said his view of same-sex "marriage" is "evolving." Apparently he thinks that the law should be based on a kind of Darwinian jurisprudence which allows it to "evolve" and become whatever the ruling politicians at a given moment say it is (or isn't).
The wording of Obama's surprise DOMA reversal announcement suggests that the decision is another instance of this president’s politicizing the administration of justice.
President Barack Obama has been denounced by Republicans for asserting federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. But last week, he was denounced by Republicans for ... not asserting federal power at the expense of state sovereignty.
President Obama, the self-proclaimed “constitutional scholar,” along with the nation’s top lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, announced Wednesday that they couldn’t come up with a “reasonable” argument for limiting marriage to a man and a woman as God, Congress, state legislatures, and the majority of voters intend.
President Obama's brazenly calculated move to unilaterally abandon the federal Defense of Marriage Act showcases his attitude that he is above the law.
Late Thursday, U.S. Department of Justice lawyers filed a motion to dismiss a case that challenged the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act often referred to as DOMA.