LGBTQ news and entertainment
The ACLU reminds us how we got to “here” as the LGBT community looks to next week’s SCOTUS oral arguments for marriage equality.
In 1970, the ACLU filed the first freedom-to-marry lawsuit in the United States. We are now at the Supreme Court to fight to win the freedom to marry for couples in all 50 states. As we get closer than ever before to the freedom to marry for all, let’s take a walk down memory lane.
It really has been about visibility, hasn’t it?
(via press release)
In a letter published by The American Renewal Project, Sen. Ted Cruz implores evangelicals to pray for “traditional” marriage as SCOTUS takes up the issue of marriage equality next week.
Dear American Pastor,
On Tuesday, April 28, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in favor of “same-sex marriage.”
How will the American church respond?
The prophet Daniel described the people who know their God as people who do two things: display strength and take action (Daniel 11:32).
How can the church rise to the occasion in this situation? Along with my friend David Lane of the American Renewal Project, I urge you to consider the following –
• Preach about biblical marriage on Sunday, April 26.
We know that marriage is intended to be sacred, beautiful, and nourishing. If you do not influence your congregation’s understanding of marriage, who will fill the void? Hollywood? Divorce courts?
• Lead prayer services on Tuesday, April 28.
Prayer moves our God to intervene in history. Prayer softens our hearts and brings us into alignment with the heart of God. The church has not shared the truth about marriage well: it is time to repent and commit ourselves to courage on this front.
Regardless of what happens in the Supreme Court, or anywhere else, we know that the truth will never be obsolete. The union of man and woman in marriage will always be relevant. People will continue to need marriage, and to desire it – because we are made in the image of God, creatures who value authentic companionship and intimate connection.
That leaves us only one question. Will we be on the right side of history, the side occupied by the Author of history? Otherwise we will fall victim to the fashions of the times.
Will we discard an institution, ordained by God, which has brought so much stability and happiness to the human family? Or will we stand in its support? Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court will take a stand on marriage this summer. Let’s take ours now.
God bless America,
Senator Ted Cruz
I will point out that should SCOTUS rule in favor of marriage equality, Cruz’s “traditional” marriage will be left intact and available for all heterosexuals to enjoy. No one will be forced to “discard an institution.” The only difference will be gays and lesbians will be included.
You see how they make themselves victims? It’s all in repeating the same divisive rhetoric over and over.
Matt Baume has rounded up the weirdest Supreme Court briefs that argue in favor of preventing gays and lesbians from marrying.
Some are full of mistakes, others have baffling arguments.
And at least one is incredibly sexist, and signed by a member of Congress.
Justice Scalia, the longest-serving member currently on the Supreme Court, praises fellow SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg for TIME’s 100:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had two distinguished legal careers, either one of which would alone entitle her to be one of TIME’s 100. When she was a law professor at Rutgers and later Columbia, she became the leading (and very successful) litigator on behalf of women’s rights—the Thurgood Marshall of that cause, so to speak. President Carter appointed her to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980, and President Clinton to a seat on the Supreme Court in 1993.
Having had the good fortune to serve beside her on both courts, I can attest that her opinions are always thoroughly considered, always carefully crafted and almost always correct (which is to say we sometimes disagree). That much is apparent for all to see.
What only her colleagues know is that her suggestions improve the opinions the rest of us write, and that she is a source of collegiality and good judgment in all our work.
Hillary Clinton supports a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court granting the right of same-sex couples to marry across the nation, a campaign spokesperson said Wednesday.
Adrienne Elrod, spokesperson for Hillary for America, affirmed Clinton believes same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in a statement to the Washington Blade.
“Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right,” Elrod said.
The response follows uncertainty about Clinton’s position on same-sex marriage after she talked about a state-by-state approach to the issue an interview with National Public Radio last year.
With the impending SCOTUS arguments for marriage equality around the corner, Lambda Legal partnered with New York creative agency, The Watsons, to create #LoveRules, a digital/social awareness campaign.
The campaign is aimed at galvanizing the LGBT community and their straight allies to impact public opinion regarding the June 2015 Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality.
The #LoveRules campaign is designed to remind its audience that when you get past the court battles and religious rhetoric, misinformation and fear, the marriage equality fight comes down to affording gays and lesbians the same civil rights afforded to all Americans who choose to marry.
Go to loverules.lambdalegal.org to download Facebook and Twitter avatars and banners to show you support the freedom to marry.
Months away from a decision on same-sex marriage, and the loonies are already freaking out.
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly told Focal Point host Bryan Fischer that state governors should simply “refuse to enforce” a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage.
She also urged President Obama or whoever replaces him to direct the Attorney General to defy the court, just as the federal government should have ignored the Dred Scot ruling before the Civil War.
“We just cannot live in a country where one judge or even five judges are able to change the law of our land that goes against the laws of most of our states and we’ve had for several thousands of years about the definition of marriage, that is simply not our form of government,” Schlafly said. “We believe in ‘We The People.’”
A Texas lawmaker believes he can pass legislation that would supersede a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage.
The “Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act” by Magnolia Republican Rep. Cecil Bell Jr. will be heard Wednesday.
It says no state or local funds could be used to “license, register, certify or support” gay marriage. It would also prohibit officials from recognizing, granting or enforcing gay marriage licenses.
Bell says, “This is about the sovereignty of the states.”
SCOTUS will hear arguments regarding marriage equality at the end of April with a decision due in June.
Mr. Bell may want to take a look into the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution…
Mat Staver of the anti-gay Liberty Counsel spoke at an Orlando Tea People function this week where he said if SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage equality he would not “accept that as the rule of law.”
Via Right Wing Watch:
“I know from the natural created order that God made male and female, a mom and dad, husbands and wives as the first foundation of family,” he said. “And I don’t care if it is a 9-0 decision, they can’t change that and they won’t change that. And if they come out with a decision that is contrary to God’s natural created order, I personally will advocate disobedience to it … and collectively, we cannot accept that as the rule of law.”
“You also have to be ready to pay the consequences,” Staver continued, “because the civil government wrath is going to be poured out on you. But as a believer, you cannot obey something that is contrary to God’s law. And we would easily say, well, what would happen if the government forced you turn over a Jew in Nazi Germany? All of us would say we wouldn’t do that, we wouldn’t listen to that. Well, we’re about ready to walk into the moment”
Wait – what? What does two people being allowed to marry have to do with turning jews over to the Nazis? That analogy just took a turn into the underbush on the way to Poughkeepsie.
I personally don’t care what Staver would or would not “accept as rule of law.” If SCOTUS gives the nod to same-sex marriage, it WILL be the rule of law in the US.
Period.
Outsports reports on an appearance by anti-gay former New England Patriots player Craig James on Tony Perkins’ radio show where he objected to his former team filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage, saying it was the work of Satan.
“A locker room is a cohesive deal. A locker room is a place where everybody has different belief systems but you just get along. In my opinion, I look forward to seeing now, if management tells you and the coaching staff tells you that you better not say anything about the other side, you talk about implosion in the locker room. I know the believers I was with, my teammates — and there were a lot of believers in that locker room — we wouldn’t have been quiet for a moment, we would have spoken up.
“I have to say that … the thought of me filing something in the Supreme Court on behalf of players, I had pause. I’ll run through a wall with you guys [but] … if I were a current player in that locker room and my livelihood depended on me being quiet or losing it because of my belief system, I worry, I wonder. So, that’s Satan working on us.”
James came out as anti-gay during his failed 2012 Senate race, and eventually lost his job on Fox Sports for his views on LGBT folks.