According to the survey, a majority — 51 percent — said they disapproved of the ruling. Among African-Americans, more than seven in 10 said they did not agree with the high court’s findings. Whites disapproved at a 48-33 percent clip, while a full half of Hispanics said they were against the ruling.
Voters were more supportive of a pair of the court’s decisions on same-sex marriage, echoing similar findings in Pew and USA Today polls released earlier this week.
Of those surveyed, 56 percent say they support the extension of federal spousal benefits to gay couples legally married in their home states, while 51 percent said they backed the move to strike down California’s prohibition on gay marriage.
Less than 24 hours after California started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, lawyers for the sponsors of the state’s same-sex marriage ban filed an emergency motion Saturday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and stop the weddings.
Attorneys with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom claim in the petition that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acted prematurely and unfairly on Friday when it allowed same-sex marriage to resume by lifting a hold it had placed on same-sex unions while a lawsuit challenging the ban made its way to and through the Supreme Court.
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Austin Nimocks says the Supreme Court’s consideration of the case is not done yet because his clients still have 22 days to ask the justices to reconsider their decision holding that Proposition 8’s backers did not have legal authority to defend the ban.
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage to return to the nation’s most populous state by ruling 5-4 on Wednesday that the sponsors of California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex unions lacked authority to defend the measure in court.
The actual Filing is here
The application argues that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Proposition 8 case is not yet “final,” so the stay must remain in place. The Supreme Court ordinarily does not issue its formally binding ruling – known as the “judgment” – in a case from a federal court of appeals until 25 days after it releases its “opinion.” Because the Court issued its opinion in the Proposition 8 case on June 26, it would by default not issue the judgment until Monday, July 22. (The 25th day is July 21, a Sunday.) The principal point of that delay is to permit the losing party to prepare and submit a petition for rehearing to the Justices, though such petitions are as a practical matter never granted.
The parties could ask the Supreme Court to expedite the release of the judgment. That is in fact what occurred last week in the “Baby Girl” Native American adoption case. After a request by the petitioner, the Court ordered the mandate issued in 7 days, rather than the usual 25.
Absent such a request, most observers expected that same-sex marriage in California (in the places in the State it did become available) would not begin again for roughly a month. Even if the court of appeals was not required as a matter of law to wait, that appeared to be the more measured and prudent course. But the Ninth Circuit acted more quickly, lifting the stay before the Supreme Court’s ruling became effective.
Whether the emergency request to Justice Kennedy can succeed is unclear. But it is unlikely. As a formal matter, the Ninth Circuit did not put the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Proposition 8 case into effect prematurely. The Supreme Court held that the proponents of Proposition 8 could not file appeals in federal court. That ruling says nothing about imposing or lifting a stay on same-sex marriage. The court of appeals likely has the authority to act with respect to its own previously entered stay, which is a form of controlling its own docket. Although the court of appeals had previously stated that they stay would remain in effect until the Supreme Court’s ruling was final, it presumably can change its mind.
Still wrestling with the weightiest decisions of its current session, the Supreme Court is likely to accept Monday what could be the most important case of its next one: a colossal power struggle between the White House and Congress over government appointments.
President Obama and Senate Republicans set the stage for the showdown during the past 2½ years as they fought over Obama’s proposed nominations to a little-known federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board. That battle is a microcosm of the broader war over the nomination and confirmation process — one that dates back over several presidencies.
The story line is simple: Obama’s nominees were blocked by Republicans, just as many of President George W. Bush’s choices were blocked by Democrats. So in January 2012 — with the Senate meeting every three days in pro-forma sessions but not conducting any business — Obama used the Constitution’s “recess appointments” clause to install them without Senate approval.
The Supreme Court may rule on gay marriage this week. Advocates both for and against are glad the issue didn’t reach the court any sooner.
They didn’t want a repeat of the abortion issue. With its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the high court stepped in and guaranteed a right to abortion but also triggered a backlash that has lasted for 40 years.
With same-sex marriage, by contrast, legislators and voters in nearly every state had the chance to make their feelings known before the Supreme Court weighs in.
“People forget that durable rights don’t come from courts, they come from consensus and strong support from society,” says Jonathan Rauch, author of Denial, a recent memoir about growing up gay. “We are winning the right to marriage in a bigger, deeper way by winning it in the court of public opinion.”
After losing political battles in a majority of states, gay marriage supporters have won a number of legislative victories and ballot measures in recent years. Sensing momentum is in their favor, it may not be surprising that they’re glad they’ve had time to make their case to the public.
A Pew Research Center poll this month found that 72 percent of Americans believe universal gay marriage rights are “inevitable,” including 59 percent of those opposed to the idea.
Washington (CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday let stand New York’s strict gun control law, rejecting an appeal from a group of gun owners.
At issue was whether the Constitution’s Second Amendment provided a broad individual right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense.
New York’s Penal Law 265.03(03) bans possession of a firearm in public, either openly or concealed, unless someone can show “proper cause” to secure a carry permit. Such proper cause has to be more than just a law-abiding citizen’s desire for self-defense.
Since the high court refused to intervene, the state law stays in place.
Arizona’s law aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from registering to vote — which critics say disadvantages the young, elderly, minorities and naturalized citizens — goes before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
The case, which has wound through the courts for years, is the second election-law case recently before the high court that Arizona has a stake in. Alabama’s challenge last month to the landmark Voting Rights Act, which could free Arizona and other states from scrutiny by the Department of Justice over potential racial discrimination in elections procedures, drew more national attention.
But experts and parties to the lawsuit say the case over Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registrations too could set precedent in how elections are conducted across the country.
The case spotlights the tension between protecting election integrity — which Arizona argues its law does by requiring citizenship documents to register to vote — and encouraging wider voter registration — which Congress sought to do with a simple, nationwide voter-registration form that requires only a signature under penalty of perjury to confirm citizenship.
“This is about a state imposing restrictions that make voter registration more difficult. Whether it’s justified or not, it puts an additional hurdle in the way of the process,” said Justin Levitt, an elections-law professor at Yale and Loyola law schools. “This case is about how smooth voter registration can be.”
Most of the challenges to Gay marriage amount to attempts to show some form of harm from it, and they fail. The ones outlined in this article rest on unproven assumptions or hypothetical future grievances, that could be litigated in future cases if or when they came up, which is how our body of law grows, and how we reach a happy ground that works for most if not everyone over time.
For that reason, the arguments raised by opponents in last week’s briefs could be critical. They break down into several categories:
Procreation and child-rearing: Groups defending Proposition 8, led by California’s ProtectMarriage.com, argue that marriage is intended largely for having children and raising them with a mother and father.
“Recognition of same-sex marriages would not promote either of the principal interests on the basis of which opposite-sex marriage is a protected institution,” says a brief submitted by the conservative Family Research Council.
Several briefs criticize the District Court’s original ruling for its emphasis on marriage as a commitment among adults. The Catholic bishops labeled that definition “incoherent” and “wildly over-inclusive.”
Special legal protections: Opponents will have a tough time winning if the justices decide that laws based on sexual orientation deserve heightened scrutiny, as have those dealing with race.
Although the high court declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional in its 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, opponents of same-sex marriage such as the Coalition of African American Pastors say that doesn’t set a precedent.
Others argue that gays’ sexual orientation is a choice, rather than genetically immutable. One brief tells the stories of four “ex-gays” now in heterosexual relationships.
On Friday, the Supreme Court will convene privately to make a highly anticipated decision: Will it weigh in on gay marriage? There are currently seven cases in front of the court, covering issues from whether married gay veterans can be buried together in a military cemetery to whether same-sex couples can once again marry in California. The court can decide to hear all, some, or none of the cases. And merely deciding to take a case or not will have broad implications for the future of gay marriage in the United States.
Which cases are involved?
Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to Califorinia’s Proposition 8, is the only case facing the high court that deals specifically with the right of same-sex couples to marry. After the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2008, anti-gay-marriage activists passed an amendment to the California constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A federal appeals court then declared the proposition unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
More at San Diego Gay News
Britain’s High Court has ruled that Abu Hamza al-Masri, who is accused of helping set up a “terrorist” training camp in the US state of Oregon, can be extradited to the US where he is wanted to face charges.
Judges Duncan Ouseley and John Thomas handed down the judgment on Friday in the case of al-Masri along with four other defendents who are accused of terrorist activities.
Five terror suspects including Abu Hamza al-Masri have left jail to begin extradition to the US after losing the last appeal in a long legal battle.
The High Court ruled Hamza, Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha Ahsan, Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled al-Fawwaz did not show “new and compelling” reasons to stay.
The men left Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire in a police convoy.
Officers from the Metropolitan Police’s extradition unit will hand them over US marshals at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk.
The BBC understands a US Department of Justice-owned civilian Gulfstream jet has been on the tarmac at the base since Tuesday, having flown in from Washington that day.
A second civilian plane, a Dassault Falcon 900, flew into the airbase in the early hours of this morning from Westchester County in New York state, but close to the border with Connecticut, where Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan are expected to be tried.
Three police 4x4s, two prisoner vans and a blacked-out police people carrier left the jail at 19:15 BST.
A Home Office spokesman welcomed the decision and said it was “working to extradite these men as quickly as possible”.