June 19, 2013

Supreme Court gay-marriage rulings: Anything but simple

 Supreme Court gay marriage rulings: Anything but simple
Eric Breese, left, of Rochester, N.Y., joins fellow students and hundreds of others to rally March 27, 2013, outside the Supreme Court during in a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.(Photo: Chip Somodevilla, )

Story Highlights

Two decisions are likely to create questions for couples in civil unions
What happens when legally married couples try get divorced in a state without ?
Employers could be forced to change their benefit plans

(PhatzNewsRoom / USA Today) — WASHINGTON — If the range of possible Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage this month requires a scorecard, the potential confusion arising from those decisions may demand a manual.

It’s not as simple as whether can marry or not, and whether they become eligible for federal benefits. The two decisions are likely to create new questions for couples in civil unions and those who move between states, as well as for employers.

As a result, what’s already a complex situation for many could get more complicated, at least initially, says John Culhane, a law professor at Widener University’s Delaware campus and co-author of Same-Sex Legal Kit for Dummies.

“Obviously, we’re going to have to come up with a second edition pretty quickly,” Culhane says. “Whatever the court does, some things are going to change.”

A few of the potential decisions could make things easier or leave them unchanged, but those are among the more unlikely outcomes. The court could uphold California’s , leaving the there. It could declare a new right to marriage for all same-sex couples nationwide — an initial upheaval, but one offering long-term uniformity.

And the court could leave intact the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal benefits to legally married gays and lesbians in 12 states and the District of Columbia that allow . The law has created an uneven situation within and among states, but at least such a ruling wouldn’t require change.

But if DOMA’s benefits ban is struck down or the case is thrown out on technical grounds, both of which appear more likely, several unanswered questions would arise:

– What happens if legally married couples have moved to a state without same-sex marriage? The section of DOMA that protects those states from having to recognize marriages performed in other states would apply to state benefits, but what about federal benefits? That could be up to President Obama — and future court cases.

That’s because some federal agencies base on where the license was issued, so the federal benefits would follow the couple; for others, however — including — it’s the current residence.

“I don’t think anybody really knows how that’s going to play out,” says Steve Branton, a financial planner at Mosaic Financial Partners in San Francisco.

– What happens to couples in civil unions, from New Jersey to Hawaii, who currently receive virtually the same state benefits as those who are married?

Federal law does not recognize civil unions, so they wouldn’t automatically qualify for federal benefits. But Todd Solomon, an expert on domestic partner benefits at the law firm McDermott Will & Emery, says another legal fight could be expected.

New opportunities also would arise for gay and lesbian couples if the federal law denying benefits is struck down. Some are straightforward, such as being able to contest the last three years of federal tax returns. Others are more dramatic; for instance, they could move to a gay-marriage state because of the added attraction of federal benefits.

Getting divorced is another matter: If a same-sex married couple moves to a state that has not legalized gay marriage, they may have to move back to the first state to break the marriage apart, Branton says. A San Francisco attorney jokingly coined such a marriage “wedlocked.”

Striking down DOMA also would force employers in the affected states to change their benefit plans.

“In the long run, it would be easier for employers,” says Richard Stover, an actuary with Buck Consultants who deals with human resources and benefits for gays and lesbians. Many employers’ health plans already cover same-sex spouses and domestic partners, he says.

As for California’s Proposition 8, most speculation has focused on rulings that would permit same-sex marriages to resume in California for the first time since 2008. That could happen if the Supreme Court upholds one of the lower court rulings, denies standing to those defending the law, or dismisses the case outright.

Some of those options could leave unanswered questions as well:

If the ban’s backers lacked the legal right to defend it, the federal district court ruling would stand. That could be interpreted to apply only to the two couples who sued, to the two counties where they live (Los Angeles and Alameda), or statewide.

If the case is dismissed, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision would stand. Three other states in the circuit — Oregon, Nevada and Hawaii — allow civil unions or domestic partnerships. Same-sex couples there might argue that they deserve marriage rights as well.

Says Culhane: “There’s always the question of how broadly precedent will be applied.”

Boy Scouts meeting to consider ban on gay members

 Boy Scouts meeting to consider ban on gay members
James Oliver, left, stands behind his brother and fellow Eagle Scout, Will Oliver, who is gay, as he makes comments during a news conference in front of the Boy Scouts of America headquarters on Monday.(Photo: , AP)

Story Highlights

A proposed change would allow local units to decide for themselves
A decision, if there is one, is likely Wednesday
The policy against gays has cost the Scouts money and members

(PhatzNewsRoom / ) — Former Boy Scout leaders and activists on Monday delivered a petition with 1.4 million signatures to the Irving, Texas, headquarters of the Boy Scouts of America, urging the organization to end its ban on gay members and leaders.

Scouting executives said they were considering dropping the national ban during a three-day meeting that began Monday. A decision, if there is one, is likely Wednesday, the organization said.

One of the people delivering petitions was Eric Andresen of Moraga, Calif., whose son, Ryan, was denied an Eagle Scout badge last year because he’s openly gay.

“The Boy Scouts is an American institution. What it does for young men is incredible,” Eric Andresen said. “To exclude a specific group of people just because they’re born with a specific is just wrong.”

On Saturday, . , an Eagle Scout, told reporters he thought the ban should stay. “I think most people see absolutely no reason to change the position, and neither do I,” he said.

On Sunday, President Obama said on CBS that the Boy Scouts should drop the ban. “My attitude is that should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life,” he said.

The Scouts’ policy seemed to strengthen after a 5-4 U.S. in 2000 sided with the organization and allowed the ban. The group reaffirmed the policy last year, but it has faced dwindling membership and corporate supporters who pulled their financial backing because of the anti-gay stand.

Boy Scouts spokesman Deron Smith issued a statement saying Scouting executives are considering dropping the national ban and leaving the decision up to local units.

“Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs,” the statement said. Many Scout packs and troops are sponsored by religious groups that oppose gay membership.

Contributing: Associated Press

Five things Chuck Hagel may be asked about

130104115215 hagel story top Five things Chuck Hagel may be asked about
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

testifies before the Thursday
The former senator split with the over the
Some feel Hagel is too cool to Israel, not hard enough on Iran
He supported the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy

() — When the Senate Armed Services Committee is gaveled into session Thursday, Chuck Hagel is likely to face some sharp questions from many of his old colleagues.

If confirmed as secretary of defense, the one-time infantry sergeant and twice-wounded Vietnam veteran would be the first former enlisted man to lead the Pentagon. The former from Nebraska gets his chance to answer questions Thursday morning during his , and here are five subjects where he can expect them:

1. Afghanistan

If confirmed, Hagel will be tasked with closing out the in U.S. history, one that has now lasted more than 11 years. He opposed President Barack Obama’s decision to send another 30,000 troops into the conflict in 2009, telling the National Journal, “I think we’re marking time as we slaughter more young people.” The Obama administration now plans to pull combat troops out of Afghanistan by 2014, replacing them with a training mission to advise Afghan forces, steps Hagel will oversee if confirmed.

2. Gays and women in the military

As a senator, Hagel supported the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that kept from serving openly in the U.S. military. He told The New York Times in 1999, “The U.S. armed forces aren’t some social experiment.” And the nominee’s opponents have seized on his 1998 criticism of a Clinton administration State Department nominee as being “openly, aggressively gay,” a remark for which Hagel apologized in December.

Now he’s been asked to lead a department that has allowed gays and lesbians since 2011. And he’ll be left to implement the plans outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced last week to open front-line to women, which allow the generals and admirals to ask for exemptions for certain posts. As defense secretary, Hagel would have to make the final call on those requests.

3. The Big One

Hagel is among the backers of the “Global Zero” movement, which has called for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons under a worldwide regime of inspections. He was a co-author of a 2011 study by the group that called for reducing the current U.S. arsenal of about 5,000 warheads and bombs to about 900, a force Global Zero says would be enough to deter potential attackers while reducing the risk of proliferation or nuclear terrorism.

That position has raised some eyebrows, since Hagel would be the steward of that American arsenal if confirmed. In a recent statement, Hagel’s co-authors say their views and his “are in the U.S. national security interest and squarely in the mainstream,” while keeping nuclear stockpiles at Cold War levels aren’t. And he’s not the only high-profile figure to ultimately endorse the idea of a world without the bomb: Obama held out the same hope in 2009, as have presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan.

4. Cutting the Pentagon

Within weeks of taking office, Hagel could be forced to implement steep cuts in the Pentagon budget as a result of “sequestration,” the automatic spending cuts set up in the deal that ended the 2011 standoff over the federal debt ceiling. At the beginning of the year, Congress voted to put off those cuts for two months.

Panetta has called those across-the-board cuts of about 9.4% “potentially devastating” and urged Congress to find another way to reduce spending. But Hagel has called the defense budget “bloated” and said the Pentagon “needs to be pared down.” Look for questions about how Hagel would wield that knife.

5. The Middle East: Iraq, Iran and Israel

This has been the biggest source of criticism for Hagel since Obama picked him to replace Leon Panetta in December and the rawest nerve for the Republicans with whom Hagel broke over the war in Iraq.

Hagel supported the U.S. invasion in 2003. But by 2007, he had come to believe it was a “blunder” and joined Democrats who tried to force the Bush administration to withdraw American troops. “He has long severed his ties with the ,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Republicans have accused him of being too cool to Israel, the leading U.S. ally in the Middle East, and too soft on Iran. Hagel has called for direct talks with the Islamic republic, which Western powers suspect is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, and he complained in 2007 that the “Jewish lobby” in Washington scared lawmakers away from supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But others have rallied around him, including his friend Rabbi Aryeh Azriel of Temple Israel in Omaha, Nebraska. Azriel said Hagel is “definitely a friend of Israel” and “has wonderful, fresh ideas to try to re-engage the discussion about the Middle East.”

An Obama administration official working on the senator’s confirmation hearing told CNN that Hagel will testify that he believes Iran is a state sponsor of terror; he supports the president’s sanctions strategy against Iran and believes all options should be on the table including the military option.

Team Extreme but don’t say it: Republican Party

653b326210e8664c935f79b6c6cf88b8 Team Extreme but dont say it: Republican Party

( News) — This week started like every other week for the . They needed to stop a wayward individual. Rep. Tom Akin – MO. who went on TV and tried to explain, “legitimate rape”.

Wow, that was a failure that even the didn’t expect. From Gov. Romney to Sen. , they all asked him to get out of the race for the good of the party. He refused. Why?? Because his policy about rape, is the true stance and he doesn’t understand why Paul Ryan can hold these views and not be admonished but when he conveys them – he need to leave the race.

The more and more you see the Republican Party, you see it’s values highjacked by the extreme right. Tea Party people, religious zealots, and rich people.

No abortion – period. Not even in the extreme case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. Readjusting and Health Care to make them more privatized. No discussion on how to resolve the situation. Reducing the social welfare net that catches the poor and people who lost their jobs. Suppressing the vote of all people if they don’t agree with your position. Last but not least, no compromise –

I thought Government was suppose to get things done. This Congress has done the least amount of work of all in history. They would rather make with their party than work for the American people.

This has and will hurt them at the polls. Gov. Romney trails in all polls against President Obama. Even with 8.2% unemployment. In the battleground states, the distance is even worse. He cannot gain ground because of two things. One, he can’t run on his record. Anything he did good in Massachusetts, healthcare, , working with , and minority outreach – the GOP frowns upon. But the second reason, he not stating any policy. None of his ideas – Romney just says, “trust me”.

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

“But I think for voters who are looking at the issues and still deciding who to support, Gov. Romney has made very clear where he stands on the issues and he’s made very clear why he’s running for president. I think the campaign will continue to focus on the big issues at hand and the big issues of the country.”

That has to be a joke. But here is where it gets worse.

This is a guy who sent his wife on TV and she tried to act like the Queen of England; “We have been very transparent to what’s legally required of us. But the more we release, the more we get attacked, the more we get questioned, the more we get pushed. And so we have done what’s legally required and there’s going to be no more, there’s going to be no more tax releases given,” she said in the interview by NBC News. “And there’s a reason for that, and that’s because of how, what happens as soon as we release anything.”

But while campaigning in Michigan Saturday, Mitt Romney, the presumptive stepped into the loony bin by joining the right wing fringe group known as “birthers”, those that refuse to believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States despite the proof that he was.

“No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised”, said Romney.

This is a guy who can’t figure out who, what when why or where he’s going except to pander to extreme groups inside the GOP to hopeful secure his base.

Then, there’s Paul Ryan – who actually should have been the nominee. He can’t state his views but the ticket and position is his views. The budget, the ideology, and the values.

He looks like a “fish out of water”. He’s bending and moving trying to be more mainstream but isn’t. All of this spells doom in November.

No thinking American will send two people who don’t know what or how to address current issues and are only concerned with rolling back the clock on people’s right to choose, taking away entitlements, increasing defense, and catering to the rich.

That’s not America – but that’s the new GOP World.

(Factiods: some information from The Examiner, NBC News, NY Times, and Politico)

Breaking News: Obama says he supports same-sex marriage

5aff6c47e0b141f2545fecf1613bcb0c Breaking News: Obama says he supports same sex marriage

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

NEW: The Human Rights Campaign welcomes the decision
President says it is important for him to affirm support for same-sex marriage
He previously said his approach had been “evolving”
Vice President lent his support over the weekend

(CNN) — President Barack Obama, who previously said his views on the issue were “evolving,” said Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage.

The announcement puts Obama squarely at odds with presumptive Mitt , who opposes same-sex marriage.

“At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said in an interview with .

The president once opposed same-sex marriage.

Obama was “disappointed” by Tuesday’s vote on the issue in North Carolina, which he described as discriminatory against , a spokesman said earlier Wednesday.
Timeline: Obama and same sex marriage

North Carolina voted to implement a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, which was already prohibited by state law. Supporters of the measure pushed for the constitutional amendment, arguing that it was needed to ward off future legal challenges.

What’s next for North Carolina?

Obama spoke Wednesday with ABC’s Robin Roberts. The interview will appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts were to air Wednesday evening on “World News With Diane Sawyer.”

His interview followed comments by other key administration figures.

Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday on NBC he was “absolutely comfortable” with couples of the same gender marrying, leading observers to wonder when Obama would again address the issue.

What’s your take on North Carolina’s ban?

Education Secretary on Monday also made headlines when he openly backed same-sex . Asked on ’s “” if he supports allowing individuals of the same gender to legally wed, Duncan replied: “Yes, I do.”

Obama told Roberts that first lady Michelle Obama was involved in his decision.

“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do,” Obama said.

The new president of the Human Rights Campaign lauded Obama’s decision.

Reaction to Obama’s same-sex marriage announcement

“President Obama’s words today will be celebrated by generations to come,” Chad Griffin said. “For the millions of young gay and lesbian Americans across this nation, their president’s words provide genuine hope that they will be first generation to grow up with the freedom to fully pursue the American dream.”

Obama told ABC that some opinions on the issue are “generational.”

“You know, when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, , that they believe in equality,” he said.

Appeals court strikes down Calif.’s gay marriage ban

2e8b779a197a0f20fcda7e548a3c9f20 Appeals court strikes down Calif.s gay marriage ban

( News / ) — SAN FRANCISCO – The fight over whether states can prohibit moved one step closer to the Supreme Court on Tuesday when a federal struck down California’s ban, declaring that it served “no purpose … other than to lessen the status and of in California.”

The 2-1 decision, a victory for challengers of Proposition 8 yet narrowly crafted, is the latest in a saga playing out in California and reverberating nationwide. The case will likely become a momentous test of whether the U.S. Constitution forbids states from blocking same-sex couples from marrying.

It set off immediate reactions among a crowd of about 100 supporters of gay marriage who had gathered at the to await word of the ruling.

BLOG: Religion leaders call ruling ‘insult’ or ‘victory’
STORY: Wash. is likely the next to allow gay marriage
BLOG: Romney, Gingrich slam Prop 8 ruling

Will Clayton, 49, of San Francisco said the ruling was “a .” He and his boyfriend of five years who lives in Den Bosch in the Netherlands are waiting until they can legally marry here.

Defenders of Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in 2008, expressed outrage. “No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people,” said Brian Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group that helped defend Proposition 8.

Tuesday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirms a 2010 ruling by U.S. District Vaughn Walker invalidating Proposition 8. The effects of Walker’s decision, and the issuance of licenses to gay people, have been on hold during the litigation.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the appeals court, stressed that the panel’s decision was narrow and based on California’s earlier granting of marriage licenses to gay people. The decision was limited to the situation in California and did not broadly assert a right for gays to marry.

“Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question,” Reinhardt wrote. “It is currently a matter of great debate in our nation, and an issue over which people of good will may disagree, sometimes strongly. … We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already extended to committed same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of ‘marriage.’ ”

He noted that Proposition 8 wrongly took that full designation away from a whole class of people and that the “strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment’s constitutionality on narrow grounds.”

Reinhardt relied on the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision Romer v. Evans, which forbids government from singling out any class of people, particularly gay men and lesbians, “for disfavored legal status” without sufficient grounds. The majority said Tuesday that the arguments offered by Proposition 8 defenders, including that it was necessary to promote child rearing by biological parents, failed to meet the Romer test.

California voters had approved Proposition 8, defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, in November 2008 to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling that May that gave gay couples a right to marry based on the California Constitution.

Reinhardt, an appointee of President Carter, was joined in the decision by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, an appointee of President Clinton. Judge Randy Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dissented. “Here, the people of California might have believed that withdrawing from same-sex couples the right to access the designation of marriage would, arguably, further the interests in promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting,” Smith wrote, adding that although the assumptions underlying that rationale may be erroneous, they provide sufficient grounds for a policy against same-sex marriage.

Proposition 8 defenders may seek a review by the full 9th Circuit or try to go directly to the Supreme Court.

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York — president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which backed Proposition 8 — called the ruling a “grave injustice.”

“The people of California deserve better. Our nation deserves better. Marriage deserves better,” he said.

The other major religious force in the 2008 effort was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon Church. Spokesman Michael Purdy said Tuesday that the church regrets the ruling. “Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society,” he said. “They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations.”

“It’s fantastic,” said Lori Hawkins, 53, of San Francisco, who attended the rally here with her husband, Ray, 52. “There was a time in California history when we couldn’t have gotten married” she said. She pointed to her white husband and said that as a Chinese American, she would have been barred from marrying him.

Many California officials also praised the decision. It “stands as a victory for the fundamental American principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and treatment under the law,” said Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor who directed the city clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples when voters approved the measure.

Biskupic reported from Washington. Contributing: William M. Welch, Los Angeles; Cathy Lynn Grossman, McLean, Va.; the Associated Press.

U.S. appeals court strikes down Calif. gay-marriage ban

1cc5e096b25c4d0cb8b9a32561bd814a U.S. appeals court strikes down Calif. gay marriage ban

(Phatforums News / ) —- The U.S. today struck down as unconstitutional California’s Prop 8, which banned , the Associated Press reports.

The ruling by the three is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court in San Francisco ruled 2-1 that a lower interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the of gays and lesbians.

The measure, which passed with 52% of the vote in 2008, outlawed same-sex unions just after they became legal in the state.

It was unclear when gay marriages might resume in California. Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors and for who sued to overturn the ban have said they would appeal to the Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.

Navy reverses itself on gay marriages on military bases

32ba3cbcb1030c521846e137115b6928 Navy reverses itself on gay marriages on military bases

The Navy is changing course on guidance that would have allowed on .
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

The move suspends guidance that allowed on military bases
Before the policy is changed, it must receive a final sign-off from top

Washington () — The Navy did an abrupt about-face late Tuesday, suspending earlier guidance that could have allowed same-sex marriages on military bases once the Pentagon scraps its present Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

A memorandum from the Chief of Chaplains, M.L. Tidd, suspended one he issued about a month ago.

“My memorandum of 13 April 2011 is hereby suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and inter-Departmental coordination,” Tidd wrote on Tuesday to all Navy chaplains and “religious program specialists.”

The green light for gay marriage on military bases prompted a new round of Congressional opposition to ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Before the policy is changed, it must receive a final sign-off from top Pentagon officials that all services have received proper training on the new rules and procedures. And that final approval could be just weeks away.

RELATED TOPICS

U.S. Navy
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Some critics of the Navy’s now stalled gay marriage plan have said it would violate federal law under the .

Navy plan to allow same-sex marriage on bases draws opposition

CNN confirmed the new memo with a Navy spokeswoman, who said the Navy will continue its overall training on how to comply with the repeal of the policy that now bans from serving openly in the U.S. military.

“The training continues as planned,” Lt. Alana Garas told CNN.

“Legal counsel determined that a more thorough review was required,” he said on the issues of same-sex marriages, use of military facilities and the participation of Navy chaplains.

It remains unclear what same-sex policies the other services might be considering or adopt.

In his April memo, Rear Admiral Tidd said that in states that allowed same-sex marriage or , “base facilities may normally be used to celebrate the marriage.”

Tidd had earlier said the chaplains’ participation in a same-sex ceremony would depend on whether it was “consistent with the tenets of his or her religious organization.”