The Stowell family has always been close-knit, growing up in New Hampshire. Craig Stowell didn’t always understand the importance of same-sex marriage. But when his brother Calvin told him he was gay, Craig knew it didn’t change what he wanted for his brother – to live a full life and find someone he loved to commit to and build a life with in marriage.  

Marriage is now legal in 11 states and Washington, D.C. and the movement to pass the freedom to marry is expanding to include more and more states at a rapid pace. 

• 58% of Americans support marriage for same-sex couples including 81% of voters under 30, and a majority of Republicans under 50. 
• 64% of Evangelical Millenials believe marriage should be legal for same-sex couples.

A large and broad coalition of individuals and organizations from across the political spectrum filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs in the two cases before the Supreme Court –including more than 300 leading businesses, 30 retired military leaders, 131 top Republicans, 214 sitting Members of Congress, and dozens of religious, labor, legal, and family health organizations.

Publication: Delaware Online

Publication Date: May 3, 2013

The time is right for Republicans in the First State to lead on the freedom to marry. With a growing majority of Americans supporting civil marriage for all, Republicans are re-examining their values and realizing that moving toward freedom for everyone isn't just popular - it's the right thing to do.

Democrats have an early lead in the push for marriage, but in many cases, they are now being outpaced by Republicans. Democratic Sen. Tom Carper and Congressman John Carney recently announced their support. The same week they did so, Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois made headlines for his change of opinion, and two weeks before that, Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio embraced the issue.

For all the changes at the national level, even more Republicans have stood up for the freedom to marry at the state and local levels. In Delaware, state Rep. Mike Ramone (R-Middle Run Valley) co-sponsored the marriage equality bill that passed the House. Republicans have stepped up to the plate in New Hampshire and New York as well, casting deciding votes to protect and promote the freedom to marry in their states. In Rhode Island, the entire Senate GOP Conference backed the issue. More than 200 Republicans throughout 13 states, including Maryland and New Jersey, have voted for freedom for their friends and neighbors. With this powerful trend continuing, it's clear that the freedom to marry is no longer a partisan issue.

What's behind Republicans' change? For many, they're going back to the basics and re-assessing how their values should apply to politics.

The official "Guiding Principles" of the Delaware GOP espouse individual freedom and personal responsibility. They say the people of Delaware should be free to make their own decisions, even if some people feel that those decisions are mistakes. They state that families, not government, are the best way tocare for people. They resolve the GOP must "be committed to working always in the interest of Delaware's families." This principle resonates with people who know and appreciate the dangers of big government and people of faith who live by the Golden Rule.

Many faith leaders support Delaware's freedom to marry legislation, including Wayne Wright, the state's Episcopal Bishop. Dr. Donald Morton, pastor of Perfected Life Church in Wilmington, recently explained his support for the freedom to marry as "making sure that everybody has equal protection under the law, whether they are black, white, gay or straight, everyone has equal protection under the law." Delaware's freedom to marry bill strikes the right balance - respecting the freedom of churches to define marriage as they see fit andensuring all couples are treated equally regardless of their orientation.

The love and commitment contained within the bonds of marriage are a common need forevery couple, gay or straight. For gay and lesbian couples, the freedom to marry means stability, security and equal treatment under the law. For their children, it means their parents are able to care for them best with the legal rights and protections they need. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy summed it up during the court's hearings: "They want their parents to have full recognition and status."

 Conservatives have long argued society is better off when couples settle down and make lifelong commitments to each other. A civil society reaps the same benefitswhen same-sex couples marry. They join their families and assets, meaning they're less likely to depend on government. For pro-freedom Republicans, we see this as a way to reinvigorate the institution of marriage and reinforce its importance.

Delaware's freedom to marry bill is consistent with conservative values. As the bill advances to the Senate, First State Republicans have a tremendous opportunity to honor their fundamental principles and advocate freedom for everyone.

Margaret Hoover is a CNN political contributor and the best-selling author of the book "American Individualism: How A New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party." She serves as president of American Unity Fund.

Publication: The Houston Chronicle

Publication Date: April 25, 2013

We stand together, the Democratic mayor of San Antonio and a senior appointee in three Republican presidential administrations, united in our support for the freedom to marry and an end to the discrimination caused by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which treats one legally married couple differently from another.

On the surface, we might seem an odd mix: One of us leads a city in what has been a predictably red state; the other hopes to see the Republican Party and the nation focus on the critical issues that will determine the future strength and prosperity of this great country. One of us sits on the edge of the millennial generation as the youngest mayor of a top 50 U.S. city; the other, a former head of the World Bank, senior Bush administration official and ambassador to Indonesia.

To us, this simply speaks to the growing bipartisan support for same-sex marriage. We already know 62 percent of independents are behind the freedom to marry, according to a recent ABC/Washington Post poll. And the support from young Americans couldn't be more dramatic, with 81 percent, regardless of political affiliation, in favor of the freedom to marry.

Even more remarkable is the speed with which attitudes on this issue have changed as Americans have had a chance to reflect on it. To us, this burgeoning support isn't surprising because it reflects the fundamental American values of civil equality, personal freedom and liberty. It also reflects a common-sense recognition that when people choose to take on not only the joys of marriage, but the responsibilities and obligations, that decision should be supported and applauded.

We know those principles will guide the conversations among the Young Republicans who gather in San Antonio this weekend for their quarterly conference.

It's not much different for those of us leading America's great cities. Not only have more than 350 mayors from 35 states signed on as Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, the United Conference of Mayors signed on to the U.S. Supreme Court challenge to DOMA. To us, the diversity of our cities, large and small, is our greatest resource. Asking the federal government to treat all loving couples equally will strengthen our families and communities. It's really that simple and that profound.

Conservatives have long recognized that forcing people to hide their identity is not only unfair and hurtful, but causes many harmful social consequences. Now conservatives are increasingly recognizing that enabling individuals to enter into marriage is both fair and just, strengthening families, neighborhoods and society at large.

We are heartened by the growing political backing from both sides of the aisle. Republican Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Mark Kirk of Illinois have announced their support and dozens of prominent Republicans signed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court backing the freedom to marry. Democratic senators have also stepped forward, with 52 now in favor of same-sex marriage.

As the Young Republicans converge in San Antonio to discuss so many important issues facing our country today, they have an opportunity to lead the way toward civil equality under the law. Marriage is not the province of any one party or any one ideology. It is the dream of all parents for their children and the foundation of family life. The issue of marriage equality should not divide our country. It's time to put this issue behind us.

Castro is mayor of San Antonio. Wolfowitz is former deputy U.S. secretary of defense.

Listen to audio of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Perry Supreme Court case.

Click to read the transcript of the oral arguments in the Perry Supreme Court case.

Listen to audio of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Windsor Supreme Court case.

Click to read the transcript of the oral arguments in the Windsor Supreme Court case.

Publication: SCOTUS Blog

Publication Date: March 28, 2013 

Oral arguments in high-profile cases rarely provide a clear sense of what the Court is likely to do. Last year, after oral arguments, the conventional wisdom was that the Court was going to strike down the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act and uphold Arizona’s restrictive immigration law, S.B. 1070. Those predictions were totally wrong and completely forgotten after the decisions. 

But still it is impossible to not think about what might happen in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. There are two questions: First, will the Court dismiss one or both cases without reaching the issue of whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marriage equality? Second, if the Court reaches the merits what might it do?

Will the cases be dismissed and if so, then what?

In the oral arguments on Proposition 8, some Justices, including Justice Kennedy, raised the possibility of dismissing the case entirely. Many of the Justices raised serious questions about whether the supporters of an initiative have standing to defend it if the defendants, the governor and attorney general, won’t do so. In the arguments about Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, serious questions were raised as to whether the House of Representatives, through its leadership group, could defend a federal law when the executive branch refuses to do so.

It is quite possible that one or both of these cases could be dismissed. What then? It is far clearer for Proposition 8 than for DOMA. If the Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry simply dismisses certiorari as being improvidently granted, the Ninth Circuit decision declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional will stand and gays and lesbians will have the right to marry in California.

It is also possible that instead the Court will decide that the supporters of an initiative do indeed lack standing to appeal to defend it when the defendants refuse to do so. Such a ruling would leave untouched the federal district court’s decision and order. There never was doubt that the same-sex couples who desired marriage licenses had standing to challenge Proposition 8. The question of standing arose only on appeal. If the Supreme Court holds that the supporters of the initiative lacked standing to appeal, then the Ninth Circuit’s decision will be vacated and the district court decision stands.

The result would be that Proposition 8 could not be applied anywhere in California because the injunction issued by Judge Vaughn Walker applies to and binds the state officials – the governor, the attorney general, and the state’s Registrar of Vital Statistics – who have the sole and exclusive authority to determine who is eligible to marry in the state. In fact, the California Supreme Court has made clear, in Lockyer v. City & County of San Francisco, that “marriage is a matter of ‘statewide concern’ rather than a ‘municipal affair.’” , The district court’s injunction commands the governor, the attorney general, the registrar, and “all persons under the control or supervision of defendants” to cease application or enforcement of Proposition 8.

In fact, the Perry plaintiffs sought – and obtained – a declaratory judgment that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional on its face. Decisions invalidating a law on its face routinely establish that the law in question cannot be applied against any person, even where the case was not certified as a class action.

If the Court dismisses Windsor on standing grounds, it is harder to know exactly what that will mean. Ms. Windsor will prevail and not have to pay the estate tax owed after her spouse’s death. But this would not strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. All other same-sex married couples seeking benefits under federal law would need to bring an action. President Obama, however, could cure this by changing his policy that the federal government will enforce, but not defend, DOMA. He could, and should, issue an executive order that DOMA is unconstitutional and the executive branch may not and will not enforce it.

What if the Court reaches the merits?

If the Court reaches the merits, I think it is clear that there are five votes to strike down Proposition 8 and Section 3 of DOMA. What was most striking to me was how very weak the arguments are for denying gays and lesbians of the right to marry. The central argument advanced by Chuck Cooper, defending Proposition 8, is that marriage is primarily about procreation. But Justice Kagan pointed out that heterosexual couples always have been able to marry without needing to show the ability or desire to have children. Gay and lesbian couples will have children – by adoption, artificial insemination, and surrogacy – whether or not they can marry. Justice Kennedy made the point powerfully: there are 40,000 children of same-sex couples in California. Shouldn’t their parents be able to marry? There is no logical link between marriage being about procreation and that being a reason to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples.

Mr. Cooper was asked and could not explain how any heterosexual marriage is hurt by allowing same-sex marriage. Nor was any other credible basis offered for denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians.

I would hope, but am not optimistic, that the Court would hold that laws prohibiting marriage equality inherently deny equal protection and violate the right to marry for gays and lesbians. I believe the Supreme Court should seize this opportunity to rule that marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens and that states cannot exclude gay and lesbian Americans from what it described in Zablocki v. Redhail as this “most important relation in life.” The Supreme Court’s existing equal protection jurisprudence, and its prior decisions about the rights of gay and lesbian Americans, point inexorably to that conclusion. One need look no further than Justice Kennedy’s statement for the Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that “our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage . . . [and] family relationships.” “Persons in a homosexual relationship,” Justice Kennedy emphasized, “may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” The Court’s precedent makes clear that gay and lesbian Americans in loving, committed relationships are entitled to the same rights, dignity, and respect as their counterparts in heterosexual relationships.

Instead, more likely, the Court will try to issue narrower rulings. But that will be a challenge. In the Proposition 8 case, the Court could try to invalidate the initiative in a way that just affects California. That is what the Ninth Circuit did, but none of the Justices expressed support for the reasoning of that court, which held that it violated equal protection for a state to extend and then retract the right to marry to same-sex couples. If a state creates a right that is not constitutionally required, why can’t it be withdrawn? Conversely, if there is a right to marriage equality for gays and lesbians, why wouldn’t it exist everywhere in the country?

At the argument on Section 3 of DOMA, Justice Kennedy expressed great doubts about the constitutionality of this provision based on federalism concerns. He emphasized that marriage is something traditionally regulated by the states. This seems to be an argument based on the Tenth Amendment and the idea that that provision reserves to the states exclusive control over certain matters.

 But not once since 1937 has the Supreme Court endorsed that view. Since 1937, the Court only has found Tenth Amendment violations where Congress has commandeered states and forced them to enact laws or adopt regulations. DOMA does not do that. For the Court to hold that the Tenth Amendment leaves some matters, like marriage, exclusively to the states would be a radical change in constitutional law.

In the end, the oral arguments seemed to confirm what everyone thought in advance: Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are willing to find a right to marriage equality. Justice Kennedy likely will join them in striking down Proposition 8 and Section 3 of DOMA, if the Court reaches those issues. But how he’ll write the opinion is impossible to know at this point.

Conclusion

The silliest question in two days of arguments came from Justice Scalia, when he asked Ted Ols0n when laws prohibiting marriage equality became unconstitutional? The same could be asked as to when laws prohibiting interracial marriage became unconstitutional? When did laws requiring segregation of the races in public schools become unconstitutional? When did laws preventing women from being laws become unconstitutional?

The issue in every constitutional case is whether when the case is before the Court the government action is unconstitutional. Perhaps the most literal answer to Justice Scalia is that laws prohibiting marriage equality will become unconstitutional when the Court issues its rulings saying so. And that hopefully will be very soon.

Click to read the transcript of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Windsor Supreme Court case.

Click to read the transcript of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Perry Supreme Court case.

Windsor v. United States

• American Bar Association (PDF)
• American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Change To Win, the National Educators Association (PDF)
• American Humanist Association and American Atheists, American Ethical Union, The Center for Inquiry, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance, and the Society for Humanistic Judaism (PDF)
• American Jewish Committee (PDF)
• American Sociological Association (PDF)
• Anti-Defamation League, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Bend the Arc—A Jewish Partnership for Justice, The Central Conference of American Rabbis and Women of Reform Judaism, Congregation Beit Simchat Torah, Hadassah—The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc., The Hindu American Foundation, The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, The Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Social Policy Action Network, Keshet, Lutherans Concerned/North America, Metropolitan Community Church, The National Council of Jewish Women, Nehirim, People for the American Way Foundation, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. (PDF)
• Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (PDF)
• Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Arthur Miller (PDF)
• Constitutional Law Scholars: Bruce Ackerman, Ash Bhagwat, Lee Bollinger, Erwin Chemerinsky, Michael C. Dorf, Lee Epstein, Barry Friedman, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Lawrence Lessig, William Marshall, Frank Michelman, Jane S. Schacter, Suzanna Sherry, Geoffrey R. Stone, David Strauss, Laurence Tribe, and William Van Alstyne (PDF)
• Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality California, Equal Rights Washington, One Iowa, Equality Maryland, Vermont Freedom to Marry, Massequality, New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, and Equality Maine (PDF)
• 278 Employers And Organizations Representing Employers (PDF)
• Family Law and Child Welfare Professors: Susan Appleton, Carlos Ball, Elizabeth Batholet, brian Bix, Cynthia Bowman, Penelope Bryan, Naomi Cahn, Marion Crain, Peggy Davis, Nancy Down, Linda Elrod, Marth Ertman, Martha Fineman, Deborah Forman, Joanna Grossman, Joan Hollinger, Lisa Ikemoto, Melanie Jacobs, Courtney Joslin, Herma Kay, Laura Kessler, Suzanne Kim, Charles Kindregan, Kristine Knaplund, Holning Lau, Maya Manian, Nancy Maxwell, Linda McClain, Anthony Miller, Melissa Murray, Douglas Nejaime, Dorthoy Roberts, Kermit Roosevelt, Laura Rosenbury, Shelley Saxer, Julie Shapiro, Katharine Silbaugh, Edward Stein, Michael Walk, Rhonda Wasserman, Deborah Widiss, Barbara Woodhouse (PDF)
• Family Equality Council; Colage; Our Family Coalition; Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network; The Center On Children And Families; The Child Rights Project; and Sarah Gogin (PDF)
• Family Professors and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers: Judith Areen, Katharine Baker, Katharine Bartlett, Grace Blumberg, Kathryn Bradley, June Carbone, Barbara Cox, John Culhane, Karen Czapanskiy, Anne Dailey, Jennifer Drobac, Maxine Eichner, Ann Estin, Ira Ellman, Zanita Fenton, Leslie Harris, Carol Sanger, Jana Singer, Mark Strasser, and Jennifer Wriggins (PDF)
• Federalism Scholars: Jonathan Adler, Lynn Baker, Randy Barnett, Dale Carpenter, Ilya Somin, Ernest Young (PDF)
• Former Cabinet Officials: Dr. Donna Shalala, Dr. Louis Sullivan, Togo West, Jr. Kenneth Apfel, Sheldon Cohen, Rudy Deleon, Jamie Gorelick, Micahel Graetz, Dr. John Hamre, Bebjamin Heineman Jr., Kathryn Higgins, Constance Berry Newman, and Harriet Rabb (PDF)
• Former CIA Intelligence Officer: Graham M. Segroves (PDF)
• Former Senior Justice Department Officials and Former Counsels to the President in Support of Jurisdiction (PDF)
• Former Federal Election Commission Officials: Craig Engle, Kenneth Gross, Robert Lenhard, Lawrence Noble, Trevor Potter, Scott Thomas (PDF)
• Former Senators: Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle, Christopher Dodd, Alan Simpson (PDF)
• Former U.S. Military Officials (PDF)
• Gary Gates, Williams Institute demographer (PDF)
• Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (PDF)
• GLAD and Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund (PDF)
• Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Bar Associations and Public Interest and Legal Service Organizations (PDF)
• Los Angeles County Bar Association and Armed Forces Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (PDF)
• 212 Members of Congress (PDF)
• NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (PDF)
• National Women’s Law Center, Williams Institute Scholars Of Sexual Orientation And Gender Law, and Women’s Legal Groups (PDF)
• American Historians and American Studies Association: Peter Bardaglio, Norma Basch, George Chauncey, Stephanie Coontz, Nancy Cott, Toby Ditz, Ariela Dunler, Laura Edwards, Estelle Freedman, Sarah Barringger Gordon, Michael Grossberg, Hendrik Hartog, Ellen Herman, Martha Hides, Linda Kerber, Alice Kessler-Harris, Elaine Tyler May, Steven Mintz, Elizabeth Pleck, Carole Shammas, Mary Shanley, Amy Dru Stanley, Barbara Young Welke (PDF)
• Outserve-SLDN (PDF)
• Partnership for NYC (PDF)
• Political Science Professors: Political Science Professors (PDF)
• Professors Legal Scholars with Expertise in Equal Protection Jurisprudence: Nan Hunter, Suzanne Goldberg, Kathryn Abrams, Katherine Franke, Burt Neuborne and Angela Harris (PDF)
• Red State LGBT Coalition Groups (PDF)
• Religious and Faith Groups: 25 Bishops of The Episcopal Church; The Jewish Theological Seminary; Manhattan Conference of the Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church; Rabbinical Assembly; Reconstructionist Rabbinical College; Rabbi Akiva Herzfeld of Shaarey Tphiloh; Unitarian Universalist Association; United Church of Christ; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (“USCJ”); Affirmation; Covenant Network of Presbyterians; Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (“FLGBTQC”); Methodist Federation for Social Action; More Light Presbyterians; Presbyterian Welcome; Reconciling Ministries Network; Reconciling Works: Lutherans For Full Participation; Religious Institute, Inc. (PDF)
• The Honorable John K. Olson (Sitting Bankruptcy Judge in FL) (PDF)
• Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders (SAGE), The National Senior Citizens Law Center, the American Society of Aging, the National Hispanic Council on Again, the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, and the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives (PDF)
• Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) Survivors and Stories (PDF)
• States of New York, Massachusetts, California, Conneticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the Distict of Columbia (PDF)
• The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy Of Pediatrics, The California Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The American Association For Marriage and Family Therapy, The National Association Of Social Workers and Its California Chapter, and The California Psychological Association (PDF)
• The Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center (PDF)
• The Institute for Justice (PDF)
• Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children (University of Denver) (PDF)

Hollingworth v. Perry

• Adoption and Child Welfare Advocates: Evan Donaldson Adoption Institute, Families Like Ours, North American Council on Adoptable Children, Sue and Hector Badeau, Penelope Maza Ph.D., Brian Bryce (PDF)
• American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (PDF)
• American Anthropological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, California, and Robert M. Galatzer-Levy, M.D. (PDF)
• 100 Employers and Companies (PDF)
• American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and Change To Win (PDF)
• American Jewish Committee (PDF)
• American Sociological Association (PDF)
• Anti-Defamation League, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Bend the Arc—A Jewish Partnership for Justice, The Central Conference of American Rabbis and Women of Reform Judaism, Congregation Beit Simchat Torah, Hadassah—The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc., The Hindu American Foundation, The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, The Japanese American Citizens League, Jewish Social Policy Action Network, Keshet, Lutherans Concerned/North America, Metropolitan Community Church, The National Council of Jewish Women, Nehirim, People for the American Way Foundation, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. (PDF)
• Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (and numerous other Bar Associations, Legal Groups and municipalities) (PDF)
• Beverly Hills Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association, Women Lawyers of Sacramento, and Monterey County Women Lawyers Association (PDF)
• California Assembly Speaker John A. Perez and Law Professors: Michele Adams, Ellen Aprill, Rachel Godsil, Robin Lenhardt, Lauriw Levenson, Justin Levitt, Karl Manheim, Bertrall Ross, Carolyn Shapiro, David Skover, Georgene Vairo, Susan Bakhshian, Mary Culbert, Judy Fonda, Kathleen Kim, Eric Miller, John Nockleby, Priscilla Ocen, Maureen Pacheco, Paula Pearlman, Marcy Strauss, and Katherine Trisolini (PDF)
• California Council of Churches; California Faith for Equality; Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California; Northern California Nevada Conference, United Church of Christ; Southern California Nevada Conference, United Church of Christ; Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis; California Network of Metropolitan Community Churches (PDF)
• California Professors of Family Law: Scott Altman, R. Richard Banks, Grace Ganz Blumberg, Janet Bowermaster, Patricia Cain, Helen Chang, Jan Costello, Barbara Cox, H. Jay Folberg, Deborah Forman, Joan Heifetz Hollinger, Lisa Ikemoto, Courtney Joslin, Herma Hill Kay, Lawrence Levine, Anthony Miller, Melissa Murray, Douglas NeJaime, Patti Paniccia, Shelley Saxer, Nomi Stolzenberg, Michael Wald, D. Kelly Weisberg, Lois Weithorn, and Michael Zamperini (PDF)
• California Teachers Association and the National Education Association (PDF)
• Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo (PDF)
• Columbia Law School Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic and the Society of American Law Teachers (PDF)
• Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Arthur Miller (PDF)
• Constitutional Law Scholars: Bruce Ackerman, Ash Bhagwat, Lee Bollinger, Erwin Chemerinsky, Michael C. Dorf, Lee Epstein, Barry Friedman, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Lawrence Lessig, William Marshall, Frank Michelman, Jane S. Schacter, Suzanna Sherry, Geoffrey R. Stone, David Strauss, Laurence Tribe, and William Van Alstyne (PDF)
• Dr. Maria Nieto (PDF)
• Professors of Family Law and Constitutional Law: Edward Stein, Kerry Abrams, Joanna Grossman, Holning Lau, Katharine Silbaugh, Sarah Abramowicz, Jamie Abrams, Carlos Ball, Katharine Bartlett, Michael Boucai, Cynthia Grant Bowman, Paul Brest, Mary Pat Byrn, Norman Doresen, Nancy Dowd, Maxine Eichner, Kim Forde-Mazrui, Doni Gewirtzman, Risa Goluboff, Paul Gowder, Meredith Johnson Harbach, Kari Hong, Suzanne Kim, Nina Kohn, Kevin Noble Maillard, Linda McClain, Julie Nice, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Rachel Rebouche, Clifford Rosky, David Rudenstine, Elzabeth Scott, Julie Shapiro, Andrew Siegel, Bela August Walker, Deborah Widiss, Marcia Zug (PDF)
• Equality California (PDF)
• Family Equality Council; Colage; Our Family Coalition; Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network; The Center On Children And Families; The Child Rights Project; and Sarah Gogin (PDF)
• Foreign and Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh, Sarah H. Cleveland, Laurence R. Helfer, and Ryan Goodman (PDF)
• Gary Gates, Williams Institute demographer (PDF)
• Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (PDF)
• Hon. Judith S. Kaye (Ret.), Profs. Stephen Gillers, Charles G. Geyh, James J. Alfini, and Mark I. Harrison (PDF)
• Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic (PDF)
• International Human Rights Advocates: International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (US), National Council for Civil Liberties (UK), Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Legal Resources Center (So. Africa) Center for Leagal and Social Studies (Argentina) (PDF)
•  Kenneth B. Mehlman, et al. 131 GOPers (PDF)
• Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (PDF)
• Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Bar Associations and Public Interest and Legal Service Organizations (PDF)
• Marriage Equality USA (PDF)
• Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington (PDF)
• National Center for Lesbian Rights (PDF)
• National Women’s Law Center, Williams Institute Scholars Of Sexual Orientation And Gender Law, and Women’s Legal Groups (PDF)
• American Historians and American Studies Association: Peter Bardaglio, Norma Basch, George Chauncey, Stephanie Coontz, Nancy Cott, Toby Ditz, Ariela Dunler, Laura Edwards, Estelle Freedman, Sarah Barringger Gordon, Michael Grossberg, Hendrik Hartog, Ellen Herman, Martha Hides, Linda Kerber, Alice Kessler-Harris, Elaine Tyler May, Steven Mintz, Elizabeth Pleck, Carole Shammas, Mary Shanley, Amy Dru Stanley, Barbara Young Welke (PDF)
• Political Science Professors: Political Science Professors (PDF)
• Red State LGBT Coalition Groups (PDF)
• Religious and Faith Groups: 25 Bishops of The Episcopal Church; The Jewish Theological Seminary; Manhattan Conference of the Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church; Rabbinical Assembly; Reconstructionist Rabbinical College; Rabbi Akiva Herzfeld of Shaarey Tphiloh; Unitarian Universalist Association; United Church of Christ; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (“USCJ”); Affirmation; Covenant Network of Presbyterians; Friends for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Concerns (“FLGBTQC”); Methodist Federation for Social Action; More Light Presbyterians; Presbyterian Welcome; Reconciling Ministries Network; Reconciling Works: Lutherans For Full Participation; Religious Institute, Inc. (PDF)
• Southern Poverty Law Center (PDF)
• State of California (PDF)
• Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies (PDF)
• The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy Of Pediatrics, The California Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The American Association For Marriage and Family Therapy, The National Association Of Social Workers and Its California Chapter, and The California Psychological Association (PDF)
• The Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center (PDF)
• United States (PDF)
• Walter Dellinger (PDF)
• William N. Eskridge Jr., Rebecca L. Brown, Daniel A. Farber, and Andrew Koppelman (PDF)

13 of the top 15 newspapers have editorialized their support of the freedom to marry. Listed in order of circulation. 

USA Today

“When DOMA was passed in 1996, same-sex marriage was mostly theoretical. No state had legalized it. Now, thousands of gays are legally married, and the treatment DOMA imposes is explicitly inferior.” [12/10/12]

The New York Times

“Fifty-eight years after it banned discrimination in public education, the Supreme Court has set the stage for the defining civil rights decision of this era — agreeing to hear two cases challenging laws that define marriage to exclude couples of the same sex. To us, and a growing number of Americans, the right course seems clear: that the justices continue the march toward real equality.” [12/7/12]

Los Angeles Times

“The Supreme Court should rule clearly that Proposition 8 and other bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.” [11/29/12]

San Jose Mercury News

"It will be far better for the country if the high court comes down on the side of equal rights in a way that settles the matter quickly and cleanly and allows divisions on social issues to begin to heal. But the battle for marriage equality has been won. Now it's just a matter of how the war will end." [12/7/12]

The Washington Post

" Even if the direction is clear, the path toward a universal right to marriage equality remains long…Federal courts have ruled that the act deprives gay men and lesbians of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection…If the Supreme Court does enter the fray over gay marriage, it would do well to consider the results of Tuesday’s ballot questions and, more broadly, the clear trajectory of the nation’s shifting ¬attitudes.” [11/7/12]

Daily News

“The Maine and Maryland referendums — and likely one still undecided in Washington State — took matters one step further. The people themselves had their say, and they said, yes, ‘We do.’ That’s called democracy, and it’s a beautiful thing indeed.” [11/8/12]

Chicago Tribune

Marriage is “good for communities, since it minimizes the unwanted side effects of broken homes. Authorizing same-sex marriage also works to break down age-old prejudice, discrimination and even violence against gays." [1/3/13]

Chicago Sun-Times

“It’s time for gay marriage in Illinois. Not in the distant future. Not in the near future. But now.” [12/16/12]

The Dallas Morning News

“We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the right of gay couples to marry based upon the fundamental American ideal of equality before the law.” [12/14/12]

Houston Chronicle

“The trends are becoming clear on marriage equality. After an election in which voters in four states supported same-sex marriage, and with polls consistently showing growing support for the cause, many conservatives are rethinking their opposition. The shift isn't just about political expediency but honestly focusing on the future of the American family.” [2/1/13]

The Philadelphia Inquirer

“It is important that any same-sex-marriage law also protects the rights of religious institutions to decide, according to their tenets, who may be married within them. But that should not prevent same-sex couples from otherwise having their marriages recognized as legal.” [12/24/12]

The Arizona Republic

“The facts on the ground are undeniable. Gays and lesbians are forming families. They're having children. They need the full rights and framework of family law.” [8/9/10]

The Denver Post

“And the growing tolerance for gay marriage has the potential to influence the public debate in positive ways. The nation is at a turning point when it comes to same-sex marriage.” [12/16/12]

For Immediate Release

March 25, 2013

Contact: Respect For Marriage Coalition Office / 202-567-5720  

press@respectformarriage.org

MONDAY’S TOP HEADLINES: MARRIAGE & THE SUPREME COURT

Washington, D.C. – This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two historic cases that could determine whether gay and lesbian couples have the same fundamental right to marry as anyone else, and whether gay married couples are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Tomorrow, the Court will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative which amended the California Constitution to eliminate the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry in the state.   On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Windsor, challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which requires the federal government to discriminate against married same-sex couples by denying them more than a thousand key federal protections and benefits.

From fresh endorsements to new polling – here are Monday’s top headlines on the freedom to marry:

Will Portman: Coming Out: “I support marriage for same-sex couples because I believe that everybody should be treated the same way and have the same shot at happiness. Over the course of our country’s history the full rights of citizenship have gradually been extended to a broader and broader group of people, something that’s made our society stronger, not weaker. Gay rights may be the civil rights cause of the moment, but the movement fits into a larger historical narrative…I hope that my dad’s announcement and our family’s story will have a positive impact on anyone who is closeted and afraid, and questioning whether there’s something wrong with them. I’ve been there. If you’re there now, please know that things really do get better, and they will for you too.” [Yale Daily News, 3/25/13]

USA Today Op-Ed, NFL Players Association:Football supports gay marriage: “This simple endorsement of equality might surprise some people. After all, recent headlines around the NFL have focused on a preoccupation with draft eligible players' sexual orientation. And, of course, we have yet to count an openly gay player among our teammates. Nonetheless, many NFL players see what everyone else in this country sees — the growing support for marriage equality. We believe that denying people basic rights and protections simply because of who they are and whom they love is wrong. It's an unconstitutional breach of our right to equal protection under the law.” [USA Today, 3/24/13]

Huffington Post: Claire McCaskill Backs GayMarriage: “I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry. My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.” [Huffington Post, 3/24/13]

Columbus Dispatch: Poll: Ohio marriage views shift:“But now, just days before the U.S. Supreme Court considers a pair of landmark gay-marriage cases, a new Saperstein Poll for The Dispatch shows that 54 percent back a proposed new amendment to repeal the 2004 measure and “allow two consenting adults to marry, regardless of their gender.” Just 40 percent oppose the proposal, which also would allow religious institutions to determine who they will or won’t marry, and protect such institutions that refuse to perform a marriage.” [Columbus Dispatch, 3/24/13]

WASHINGTON TIMES: Karl Rove Predicts Next GOP President Could be Pro-Gay Marriage: “The next Republican presidential candidate could very well be in favor of same-sex marriage, said GOP strategist Karl Rove, during an interview on ABC. Mr. Rove was responding to a question from “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos: ‘Can you imagine the next presidential campaign a Republican candidate saying flat out, ‘I am for gay marriage?’ Mr. Rove: ‘I could,’ he said.” [Washington Times/ABC This Week, 3/24/13]

WBUR: Mass. Businesses Argue DOMA Hurts Profits, Company Culture: “The Defense of Marriage Act prevents same-sex couples from getting medical coverage and other tax and retirement benefits that straight employees get for their spouses. And that complicates matters for employers such as MassMutual Financial Group, says Mark Roellig, the general counsel of the Springfield company. “So when you start dealing with issues of tax withholding or payroll taxes or workplace benefits, we’re basically treating people differently,” Roellig said. Roellig says MassMutual does not want to discriminate. But when his company gives same-sex employees the same spousal benefits that any other employee gets, DOMA forces the company to report that as income. It’s not tax-deductible. So same-sex couples pay more in taxes. And MassMutual pays more in FICA taxes. That’s not only expensive and unfair, Roellig says, keeping track of this dual system also costs his company time and money.” [WBUR, 3/25/13]

New York Times Op-Ed, NFL Player ScottFujita: Acceptance by Example, on the Field and at Home: “I support marriage equality for so many reasons: my father’s experience in an internment camp and the racial intolerance his family experienced during and after the war, the gay friends I have who are really not all that different from me, and also because of a story I read a few years back about a woman who was denied the right to visit her partner of 15 years when she was stuck in a hospital bed. My belief is rooted in a childhood nurtured by a Christian message of love, compassion and acceptance. It’s grounded in the fact that I was adopted and know there are thousands of children institutionalized in various foster programs, in desperate need of permanent, safe and loving homes, but living in states that refuse to allow unmarried couples, including gays and lesbians, to adopt because they consider them not fit to be parents.” [New York Times, 3/23/13]

Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: The Political Debate on Same-Sex Marriage is Over: “The Supreme Court will hear two landmark cases on gay marriage this week that have the potential to reshape how the country defines one of its most sacred institutions. But, no matter how the high court rules later this year on California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, one thing is already clear: The political debate over gay marriage is over…Evidence of that reality is everywhere. Dozens of prominent Republicans — led by former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman — have signed onto a brief to the court urging repeal of Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the Golden State. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a finalist to serve as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential nominee in 2012, announced last week that he was reversing course and would now support the right of gay men and lesbians to marry…Anecdotal evidence aside, national polling tells the story in stark terms. In a Washington Post-ABC poll released last week, nearly six in 10 Americans said they support the legalization of gay marriage. That’s the highest level of support ever measured in the Post-ABC survey — and compares with just 41 percent who supported legalization in 2004.” [Washington Post, 3/24/13]

AP Interview: Lesbian Couple in Gay Marriage Case: “’For the past four years, we've lived our lives in this hurry-up-and-wait, pins-and-needles way,’ Perry said, recalling the crush of court deadlines and the seemingly endless wait for rulings from a federal district judge, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also based there, and the California Supreme Court… Stier said Olson told them the case could take several years to resolve. "I thought, years?" she said.” [AP, 3/24/13]

Los Angeles Times: The Conservative Legal Star Who is Fighting For Gay Marriage:“Certain law partners no longer call Theodore B. Olson for lunch. Old friends no longer come to dinner at his sprawling house in the woods near the Potomac. One of his best friends died in December, somewhat estranged…All since Olson — the conservative legal hero, crusader against Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, defender of George W. Bush — signed on to fight for same-sex marriage in California, a battle that he will take to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday… Olson will argue that gays and lesbians should have an equal right to marry, a view that, if shared by the justices in a ruling after Tuesday's hearing, would strike down the California ban.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/24/13]

NPR: Former Bush Aide Pushes ‘Conservative Case’ For Gay Marriage: “One hundred thirty-one prominent Republicans have signed a pro-same-sex marriage legal brief that is clearly at odds with the House GOP leadership and the party's platform in the most recent election. Because of the prominence of the signers, the brief stands out among the more than 150 friend-of-the-court briefs filed in two same-sex marriage cases to be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court this week. The man who rounded up the group is Ken Mehlman, the former political director for the George W. Bush White House.” [NPR, 3/24/13]

THE DESERT SUN: DOMA delivers its harshest blow in times of need: “For myself — and many other gay and lesbian married couples — the worst part about DOMA is that it kicks you when you are down... After Tom died, my application for Social Security survivor benefits — a routine protection available to straight married couples — was summarily denied because our marriage was not recognized by the federal government. That rejection left me in serious financial condition and set off a painful chain of events…For me and for countless others, DOMA dealt a crippling and irreconcilable blow at what is arguably life’s toughest moment. The Supreme Court can right this wrong and ensure that all marriages are treated equally under the law and by our federal government. Fifty-eight years of love and commitment should matter.” [The Desert Sun, Ron Wallen, 3/24/13]

New York Times Editorial: Heightened Scrutiny: “One of the central questions in the two gay marriage cases to be argued before the Supreme Court this week is whether gays and lesbians are a protected class under the Constitution. Under longstanding principles, government actions that fall heavily on “discrete and insular minorities” historically subject to prejudice and stigma are to be given particular scrutiny… “Finally, gays and lesbians, as a minority group, cannot protect themselves from discrimination in a political process governed by the majority. If they had power, Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act would never have passed, nor would the laws currently on the books in 39 states that specifically restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.” [New York Times, 3/24/13]

# # #

The Respect for Marriage Coalition is a partnership of more than 100 civil rights, faith, health, labor, business, legal, LGBT, student, and women's organizations working together to end the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and grow support for the freedom to marry. The Coalition is co-chaired by Freedom to Marry and the Human Rights Campaign. 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Click the image to enlargen (PDF):

Author: Kevin Robillard 

Publication: Politico

Publication Date: March 22, 2013

A national coalition backing same-sex marriage is releasing a new ad Friday, leading into next week’s Supreme Court debates on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.

The $150,000 ad buy is the latest step in a $1 million campaign. The ads will be broadcast on stations in Washington, D.C., including the Sunday political talk shows and will air throughout next week on national cable.

“A growing majority of Americans have come to believe it’s time to allow marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Here’s why,” the ad from the Respect for Marriage Coalition begins. The ad features regular Americans talking about their gay and lesbian relatives and friends. The ad ends with the line, “It’s time to give gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.”

The ad hopes to capitalize on growing momentum for gay marriage. In the past week, both Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have announced their support for gay nuptials, and a Washington Post/ABC poll released this week found 58 percent of Americans support gay marriage, a dramatic reversal from a decade ago.

“We want to support our daughter,” Holly Mak, who is featured in the ad alongside her husband, Marc Hersh, told POLITICO. “We adore her. And if she wants to get married, she should have the same protections we have as a heterosexual couple.”

The ad taps into a major reason for increase support for gay marriage: the experience of knowing gay people. Portman announced his support after his son came out of to him two years ago. A Pew Research Center poll conducted this week found 14 percent of Americans had changed their minds about gay marriage, and 32 percent of those said it was because they knew someone who was gay.

Author: Jon Cohen

Publication: Washington Post

Publication Date: March 18, 2013 

Public support for gay marriage has hit a new high as Americans increasingly see homosexuality not as a choice but as a way some people are, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll shows that 58 percent of Americans now believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married; 36 percent say it should be illegal. Public attitudes toward gay marriage are a mirror image of what they were a decade ago: in 2003, 37 percent favored gay nuptials, and 55 percent opposed them.

The Supreme Court takes up the issue of gay marriage next week, and nearly two-thirds of all Americans say the matter should be decided for all states on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, not with each state making its own laws.

Among young adults age 18 to 29, support for gay marriage is overwhelming, hitting a record high of 81 percent  in the new poll. Support has also been increasing among older adults, but those aged 65 years old and up remain opposed, on balance: 44 percent say same-sex marriage should be legal; 50 percent say illegal.

A slim majority of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old now support gay marriage. Nearly seven in 10 of those aged 65 and up oppose it, although that is down from more than eight in 10 just four years ago.

There has been a related movement in public opinion about homosexuality. Fully 62 percent of Americans now say being gay is just the way some people are, not something people choose to be. About 20 years ago, fewer than half of the public said so.

In the current data, about three-quarters of those who do not see homosexuality as a choice support gay marriage, with most supporting it “strongly.” More than two-thirds of those who see it as a choice oppose gay marriage, with almost all intensely against it.

Currently, gay marriage is legal in only nine states and the District of Columbia, but public views are more similar than not across state lines. In the states that allow gay marriage, 68 percent say such same-sex marriages should be legal, but so too do 56 percent of those in states where the practice is not legal.

Intensity on the matter is, however, different in those states. In places where gay marriage is legal, 52 percent feel strongly that it should be. That falls to 39 percent feeling strongly that it should be legal in states where it currently is not.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted March 7 to 10, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults. The margin of sampling error for the full survey is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Click here for interactive poll results and complete question wording. Complete trends over time are available here.

Cohen is director of polling at Capital Insight, the independent polling group of Washington Post Media. Pollsters Peyton M. Craighill and Scott Clement contributed to this report.

Author: Ella Robinson and Gene Robinson

Publication: Washington Post

Publication Date: March 18, 2013 

More than most, our family understands the movements of history.

We were among those who first publicly and proudly identified ourselves as a family with a parent who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Over the course of 30 years, we have witnessed first hand how attitudes are changing.

Now, as we watch history being made at the Supreme Court, we have a lot to say about the love that makes a family.

We are part of a generation of modern families who define ourselves by the love that binds us together. As a cultural struggle has played out in the public square over marriage equality, it’s the love that exists in all families –whether their parents are gay or straight –that should be paramount to any discussion about marriage, and there is no debating the love that we have for each other.

Our family has been through difficult times together. Having a parent become the world’s first openly gay bishop was bound to test our family bonds, just as the events in all of our lives often do. But what has held us together through the years is our unwavering commitment to each other and the understanding that no matter what the world outside may throw at us, our love for each other is stronger.

That’s what the American people need to hear as the Supreme Court hears arguments in Hollingsworth V. Perry and Windsor V. United States; that the nation is ready for marriage equality because each passing day more of our friends and neighbors recognize in us the love they know in their own families. More and more they understand that at the end of the day our families are much more alike than they are different – no matter what it may look like on the outside.

Marriage equality is, at its core, about love, commitment, and fairness. Over the years, our family has experienced love and commitment in abundance because God has blessed us with the unyielding strength of our family. But, we’ve also experienced how deeply unfair it is that our family is treated differently because of who we are.

That’s why we are dedicated to speaking out on this issue.

We’ve tried to base our lives on the golden rule –do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We try each and every day to extend the love that exists in our family outwards, and to treat others as we want to be treated, and we ask the same of our fellow Americans.

Today, our country is undergoing a transformation that will strengthen the bonds of all our families. We are becoming a place where we honor and value every person – no matter who they love. We are becoming a country where all our children know that their families are respected—no matter their composition. We are becoming a country that puts the love of families above discrimination.

But we’re not there yet. We can do better.

We envision looking back on this time, 30 years from now, and marveling at how far we’ve come. But until then we must see this historic moment as a chance to bring us closer to that reality.

This is the moment where love triumphs and families just like ours experience the fairness we’ve waited for decades to find.

The nation is ready to honor the love of all families.

The nation is ready for marriage equality.

The Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson, Retired, served as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire from 2003 to 2013 and was the first openly gay bishop of a major Christian denomination. The bishop’s latest book, “God Believes in Love: Straight Talk about Gay Marriage,” was published by Alfred Knopf in the fall of 2012. He currently serves as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Ella Robinson is the youngest daughter of Gene Robinson. She serves as co-chair of the “Outspoken Generation,” a national program empowering young adults with parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) to speak out on behalf of their families.

 "LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones - and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship," she said in the video. "That includes marriage. That's why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and for all Americans."

She went on to explain, "Marriage, after all, is a fundamental building block for our society - a great joy and, yes, a great responsibility."

Clinton acknowledged the journeys that many Americans have taken with regard to their views on the freedom to marry, and she encouraged people to continue considering why marriage matters and sharing their reflections with their friends and family members. "I hope that as we continue to discuss and debate - whether it's around a kitchen table or in the public square, we do so in the spirit of respect and understanding," she said.

Clinton reflected on her own daughter's recent marriage to her husband and explained that she was proud her daughter had that opportunity. "I wish every parent that same joy," she said. "To deny the opportunity to any of our daughters and sons solely on the basis of who they are and who they love is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God-given potential." 

Watch the full video HERE.

Author: Sabrina Eaton

Publication: Cleveland Plain Dealer

Publication Date: March 15, 2013 

Republican U.S. Sen. Rob Portman on Thursday announced he has reversed his longtime opposition to same-sex marriage after reconsidering the issue because his 21-year-old son, Will, is gay.

Portman said his son, a junior at Yale University, told him and his wife, Jane, that he's gay and "it was not a choice, it was who he is and that he had been that way since he could remember."

"It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years," Portman told reporters in an interview at his office.

The conversation the Portmans had with their son two years ago led to him to evolve on the issue after he consulted clergy members, friends including former Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Bible.

"The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue," Portman said, adding that he feels that "in a way, this strengthens the institution of marriage."

Portman said his son didn't push him to make his announcement, though he "encouraged me."

Portman, who backed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, said he now thinks parts of that bill should be repealed, though he hasn't considered introducing such legislation himself because economic policy issues are his specialty.

Portman said he believes that same-sex couples who marry legally in states where it's allowed should get the federal benefits that are granted to heterosexual married couples but aren't currently extended to gay married couples because of DOMA, such as the ability to file joint tax returns. Family law has traditionally been a state responsibility, Portman says, so the federal definition of marriage should not preempt state marriage laws.

If Ohio voters were to reconsider the gay marriage ban they adopted in 2004, Portman said he might support it, depending on its wording, though he would not be likely to take a leadership role on the issue just as he didn't take a leadership role in 2004. He stressed that he doesn't want to force his views on others, and that religious institutions shouldn't be forced to perform weddings or recognize marriages they don't condone.

He said his decision to announce his new stance was not motivated by its potential political impact, and he was not sure what the fallout would be. He noted that nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage, and that the issue has more support among younger people.

"I believe in some respects that this is more generational than it is partisan," said Portman

He said he does not know of other Republican U.S. Senators who share his views on gay marriage, although Cheney, who has a gay daughter, agrees with them, and recently advised him to "do the right thing, follow your heart."

Portman said he decided to announce his change-of-heart on Thursday because he anticipates getting questions on the issue in view of the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court arguments over gay marriage.. He said he does not plan to sign onto any legal briefs on the case.

He said factors in the timing of his announcement included "getting comfortable with my position and wanting to do this before the politics of these court decisions make it more difficult to have an honest discussion."

Author: Robert Barnes

Publication: Washington Post

Publication Date: March 9, 2013

At the center of the Supreme Court’s preeminent case of the term — the one that holds the potential for redefining marriage in America — are a couple whose chief attribute is how conventional they strive to be.

Jeff Zarrillo, 39, manages the big multiplex movie theater in downtown Burbank, and Paul Katami, 40, is a fitness instructor. They have lived for nine years in a small but handsome house just past the second speed bump on a quiet, suburban street. It is a neighborhood where American flags are plentiful and interest in the school board election appears high.

When the Supreme Court hears the men’s challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage on March 26, there is a good possibility that their names will not even be mentioned.

What the court is interested in, among other things, is whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection contained in the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, requires extending the right of marriage to those who want to wed someone of the same sex.

What Zarrillo and Katami are interested in is getting married.

“He’s the person I want to spend the rest of my life with,” Zarrillo said in a recent interview as the sounds of an action movie rumbled through the walls of his office at the theater. “I want to be able to call him my husband. I want to marry him, just like my parents are married.”

Their lawsuit against Proposition 8, which California voters approved in 2008 to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, is nearly four years old. Both Zarrillo and Katami say they have grown accustomed to talking to strangers about each other, about love, about their desire to get married and raise children.

Still, until now, the men most closely identified with the court challenge were not the Californians but their attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies.

Competitors in Bush v. Gore, it was their political-odd-couple collaboration to get the issue of same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court that earned a Newsweek cover, bountiful television interviews and front-page headlines in newspapers across the country.

“Just the other day,” Zarrillo said, “I was talking to somebody about our case and he said, ‘Wait. You mean you’re in the Ted Olson case?’ ”

“But really, they do deserve all the credit,” Zarrillo continued with a laugh. “I mean, they’ve done everything to get us here.”

But every lawsuit requires real plaintiffs, people with a tangible interest in the outcome: The men — along with a lesbian couple from the Bay area, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, who also are named in the suit — would like to get married. Proposition 8 says they may not.

“They are a real couple,” said Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the group organized to challenge Prop 8. “They live in a house in the suburbs, with kids going by on skateboards and playing catch in the front yard, and they’ve got their two dogs and they go to work. It’s so remarkably normal in a way, and I think that’s what’s so powerful about it.

“How can you deny these two?”

But four-fifths of the states — most through voter-approved constitutional amendments — would. In a brief filed to the Supreme Court, 20 of them said that “legitimate justifications for traditional marriage are long-established, even if sometimes forgotten or deemed old-fashioned.”

And the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said a finding for same-sex marriage could subject religious institutions “to substantial civil liability if they choose to continue practicing their religious beliefs.”

In their brief, the attorneys for Zarrillo and Katami said their clients agree with the proponents of Prop 8 “that marriage is a unique, venerable, and essential institution. They simply want to be part of it.”

The ideal plaintiffs

California voters approved Prop 8 after the state Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that same-sex couples could not be denied the right to marry. It passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Almost immediately, liberal activists such as Rob and Michele Reiner began organizing a legal challenge. The surprise came when they were told the issue might interest Olson, a prolific Supreme Court practitioner, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush and stalwart of the conservative legal establishment.

He teamed up with Boies to organize a challenge that would try not just to overturn Prop 8 but also to establish that the Constitution requires making marriage available to all. And that would involve finding the right plaintiffs.

Zarrillo and Katami had no reason to believe it would be them.

They have been a couple for 12 years, politically aware, especially of Prop 8, but hardly activists.

Zarrillo is a “Jersey boy,” raised in the township of Brick and a graduate of Montclair State University. He started taking tickets at the local movie house in college, and now AMC is the only company he has ever worked for.

He moved to California after college and now manages the 16-screen theater in downtown Burbank, the busiest on the West Coast.

His coming out was slow, even though he said he knew in high school that he was gay. Even after coming to California he dated women. He met Katami online.

When the two decided to move in together, Katami had one condition.

“I told him that I wouldn’t do it until he told his parents,” Katami said in an interview, sitting at the couple’s dining-room table. “I had been through all that with someone else — separate phone lines and everything. I wasn’t going to do that again.”

Zarrillo booked a flight to New Jersey that night. He should not have been concerned.

As his father, Dominick, wrote in a first-person Father’s Day article published last year in the New York Times: “We told him that we already knew, and that we really liked Paul, and that we were happy for him. We laughed about how scared he had been to tell us, and after that it was Jeff and Paul, Paul and Jeff.”

Katami grew up in San Francisco, and he, too, mostly kept the secret of his sexuality through high school. He figured his family suspected and never felt the need for a sit-down explanation. “I just decided one day I would say, ‘I have a boyfriend, and I’m bringing him home for Thanksgiving,’ and that would be it,” he said.

After getting a master’s of fine arts at UCLA, Katami tried his hand at acting and eventually settled on training. He developed a core-exercise apparatus called the Katamibar that he introduced via infomercials, and he has a full line of training videos online.

The on-camera training and connections proved valuable when Katami was outraged by an ad produced by the National Organization for Marriage. Called “The Gathering Storm,” the video portrayed doctors, ministers and parents worried about the growing same-sex-marriage movement. “I just thought, how could somebody be afraid of people like me and Jeff?” Katami said. He put together a group to produce a YouTube rebuttal called “Weathering the Storm.”

Someone remembered it when the American Foundation for Equal Rights began looking for plaintiffs to challenge the law.

‘The heart of our case’

“We talked to quite a few couples,” said Theodore Boutrous, a partner of Olson’s in Los Angeles. He said the discussions were extensive. “We wanted them to know that we expected this to be a major case for marriage equality . . . and that we were trying to change the public dialogue and that they would really be in the public eye.”

In the end, they settled on Perry and Stier, who together are raising four sons, and Katami and Zarrillo, who say they want children, but only after marriage.

The two considered marrying during the 142 days that transpired between the state Supreme Court decision authorizing same-sex marriage and the Prop 8 vote that forbade it. “But there were questions about whether those marriages would be valid,” Katami said, adding that “it would be even worse to go through it” and then have the marriage nullified. (Courts later held that the 18,000 marriages conducted during the period remained legal.)

It was a surprise to many when U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker declared there would be a trial in the case. Preparing for depositions and testimony was the most stressful part of the process, each said.

But their testimony — more like statements, really — on the first day of the trial, “was really the heart of our case,” Boutrous said.

If marriage was not so important, Zarrillo said, “we wouldn’t be here today. I want to be able to share the joy and the happiness that my parents felt, my brother felt, my friends, my co-workers, my neighbors, of having the opportunity to be married. It’s the logical next step for us.”

From Katami: “We currently struggle, in certain circumstances, about what to call each other. . . . But ‘husband’ is definitive. It’s something that everyone understands.”

Their testimony has literally given them a stage. Screenwriter Dustin Lance Black turned the trial transcript into a play called “8” — Matthew Morrison of the television show “Glee” has portrayed Katami, actor Matt Bomer read the words of Zarrillo — and it has been seen online or at stagings by more than 3 million people, Umhoefer said.

There has been success in the courtroom as well. Walker ruled broadly for the plaintiffs’ constitutional plea. A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was more narrow, also overturning Prop 8 but in a way that limited the impact to California. The Supreme Court has before it a wide range of options.

If the justices had decided not to review the 9th Circuit’s opinion, same-sex marriage would have effectively been reinstated in California. Katami and Zarrillo could now be planning their wedding.

But neither was disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to take the case. “This is what we hoped would happen from the beginning,” Zarrillo said. “This is what we signed on for.”

Author: Bill Clinton

Publication: Washington Post

Publication Date: March 7, 2013 

The writer is the 42nd president of the United States.

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution. 

Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.

When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.

Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?’ ”

The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor, and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

Author: David Lauter

Publication: Los Angeles Times

Publication Date: March 7, 2013  

With the rapid shift in public opinion toward same-sexmarriage, opposition to changing marriage laws increasingly has become limited to a few slices of the electorate, according to an analysis of polling data by leading Republican and Democratic pollsters.

The two major divides are a generational and cultural split, according to the analysis, which looked at data from the November exit polls. 

Among people who voted in the last election who are older than 65, opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage outnumber supporters 58% to 37%. But those older voters made up only about one-sixth of the electorate.Among the large majority younger than 65, a majority now supports same-sex marriage, 52% to 44%. 

On the cultural side, people who identify themselves as white, evangelical Christians overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage – 73% to 24%. They make up just over a quarter of the electorate. Among the other three-quarters of voters, legalizing same-sex marriage has majority support, 58% to 36%. 

Opposition “is concentrated in a very small slice of the electorate,” said Joel Benenson, President Obama’s chief pollster, who analyzed the data along with Jan van Lohuizen, who was the chief pollster for George W. Bush. The two did the analysis for Freedom to Marry, a leading advocacy group for same-sex marriage. 

The shift in support has become “an irreversible trend that has already hit a tipping point,” Benenson added.

Much of the change is driven by younger voters coming into the electorate, but a significant number of voters – about 1 in 8 – say in polls that they have changed their minds on the subject of marriage in the last five years, said van Lohuizen. Almost all of those people say their stance has changed in the direction of accepting same-sex marriage, he added.

Although the demographic groups that oppose same-sex marriage are a minority nationwide, they make up a much larger share of the electorate in some states. To look at a couple of the 2012 battleground states, for example, white, evangelical Christians made up 35% of the vote in North Carolina, but 24% in Wisconsin. The highest percentages of white evangelicals are typically in Southern states.

That variation suggests that same-sex marriage could quickly become the law in most coastal states and other states with large, urban populations but that change will come more slowly in more rural states, particularly in the South.

Author: Karen Tumulty and Tom Hamburger

Publication: Washington Post

Publication Date: March 6, 2013

Exit polls and other surveys from last year’s election suggest that resistance to same-sex marriage is shrinking and mainly concentrated among certain segments of the population: older people, white evangelical Christians and non-college-educated whites. Click here to read the Benenson and van Lohuizen memo (PDF).

That is the analysis of a new study of the data by two pollsters, one a Democrat and the other a Republican.

“Significant opposition to the freedom to marry is increasingly isolated within narrow demographic groups while a much broader and more diverse majority are ready to let same-sex couples marry,” wrote Joel Benenson, who led President Obama’s polling operation in 2008 and 2012, and Jan van Lohuizen, who did the same job for former president George W. Bush.

Their research, which will be released Thursday, was commissioned by Freedom to Marry, an organization that promotes establishing a national right to same-sex marriage. It is a follow-up to a May 2011 report in which the pollsters found that support for such unions was accelerating, starting around 2009.

That appeared to be borne out by the 2012 election results. Until last year, voters had rejected same-sex marriage every time it had been put to the test in statewide elections. But in 2012, all four states with ballot questions on the issue either voted in favor of allowing such unions or rejected a ban on them.

Benenson noted that the question was not asked on exit polls in 2004 and 2008. Overall, the 2012 exit polls, which were conducted in 31 states, showed 49 percent supporting same-sex marriage in their states and 46 percent opposing it.

The pollsters found that opposition centered primarily in a few demographic groups.

Voters age 65 and older expressed opposition to allowing such unions in their states, by a 21-point margin, with 37 percent supporting them and 58 percent opposing. Those younger than 65 favored them by eight points, 52 percent to 44 percent.

The disparity was even greater among religious groups, broken down along racial lines. White evangelical Christians opposed same-sex marriage by nearly 3 to 1. But every non-evangelical group — white Protestants, white Catholics, Hispanic Catholics, African American non-evangelicals and Jewish voters — expressed support for such unions by double-digit margins.

Meanwhile, African American voters who described themselves as evangelical or born again were narrowly divided, with 45 percent saying that their state should recognize same-sex marriage and 47 percent saying it should not.

Another “pocket of opposition,” the pollsters said, is white voters who do not have a college degree. Only 40 percent of them supported same-sex marriage, compared with 56 percent who oppose it. Other groups supported such unions by 54 percent to 38 percent among non-white, non-college graduates; 56 percent to 41 percent among white college graduates, and 58 percent to 35 percent among non-white college graduates.

The report comes as the Supreme Court is about to consider two major cases involving same-sex marriage — one addressing the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts the federal government from recognizing such unions performed in those states where they are legal, and the other on the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In an interview, Benenson said the study suggests that lawmakers and candidates who embrace such unions are not likely to be punished politically, because “the American people are already there.”

“Demographics is a big part of it,” Van Lohuizen added, “but I also think there is a lot of rethinking going on.”

However, David Lane, who organizes conservative Christians nationwide, said that the more than 65 million Americans who identify themselves as evangelicals are already feeling increasingly alienated from electoral politics.

If GOP leaders embrace same-sex marriage, he predicted, “it will lead quickly to the collapse of the Republican Party,” causing a core constituency to leave for a third party or to renounce politics.

“The debate is good,” Lane added. “We need to decide whether we are a Christian nation or a pagan nation and get on with it. The glory of a nation lies in its righteousness.”

As he did for the past several election cycles, Lane is trying to mobilize evangelicals by organizing pastors and voters through the American Renewal Project, an organization that helped galvanize support for California’s Proposition 8, which is being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ralph Reed, head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, added that a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage may anger the opposition.

“Look, if the Supreme Court does with marriage what it did on abortion, which is to impose the laws of New York and Massachusetts and impose them on the rest of the country by judicial fiat, it will make this issue more divisive and contentious, not less so,” he said.

Click here to read the Benenson and van Lohuizen memo (PDF).

Publication: The Denver Post

Publication Date: March 5, 2013

In challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the Obama administration is on the right side of history.

The federal government's challenge of the constitutionality of California's voter-initiated gay-marriage ban is a welcome development in the Obama administration's evolving view on marriage equality.

But the friend-of-the-court brief the administration filed in the pending U.S. Supreme Court case also is an effort to have it both ways.

The legal argument endorses gay marriage and makes a strong case that California's ban is wrong, but it pulls a punch by not advocating for a broad ruling that would invalidate gay-marriage bans in other states, including Colorado.

Perhaps it's a strategic move designed to construct a middle-ground position for justices who might not be willing to go big on the question of gay marriage.

But it's also a missed opportunity for the administration to take a bold — and the right — position on a defining civil-rights issue of our times.

At issue is whether California's Proposition 8, passed in 2008 by voters on a 52-48 margin, violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

The measure put a prohibition against gay marriage into the state constitution and effectively kicked the legs out from a state Supreme Court ruling that a previous gay-marriage ban was illegal.

Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by two lower federal courts, and will be argued before the Supreme Court on March 26.

The lawyers challenging the ban — Theodore B. Olson and David Boies — have asked the court to render a broad ruling at a time when support for gay marriage is at an all-time high.

In a recent poll, Californians backed same-sex marriage by a nearly two-to-one margin. In 2006, two years before Proposition 8 passed, the same poll showed only 44 percent of residents supported the idea.

While Supreme Court decisions shouldn't be driven by public opinion, to say they don't influence how far justices might be willing to go on a particular issue at a particular time would be to ignore reality.

And the reality is that American opinion on gay marriage has evolved quickly during the last several years, with a plurality now supporting it.

The country is ready for it. The administration is on board, at least insofar as the core tenets of equality go. And this case presents the right questions, framed in the right way.

The Supreme Court should find gay marriage is a basic civil right and rule broadly so state gay-marriage bans could be overturned.

At the recent Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, Former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb made the case for overturning the 2006 Colorado constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He is correct — it is the right move for Colorado and the nation.

The time has come.

Publication: Bloomberg News

Publication Date: March 4, 2013

It is too soon to predict how the U.S. Supreme Court will deal with the issue of same-sex marriage, but history has already been made.

The Department of Justice argued last week that in the context of marriage (and everywhere else), courts should treat discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with essentially the same hostility they apply to discrimination on the basis of race and sex. To understand the importance of that argument, detailed in a brief opposing a 2008 California law banning same-sex marriage, we need to step back a bit.

Whenever the government treats some people differently from others, it may be acting unfairly, and its action can be challenged as discriminatory. The Supreme Court has responded to this problem by ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the government can do whatever it likes so long as its action is “rational.”

This is not meant to be a demanding test. If the government says that people younger than 16 can’t drive, that the antitrust laws don’t apply to labor unions or that small companies are exempt from pollution-control requirements, there is no constitutional problem, because in each of these cases, the government can be said to be acting rationally.

In a few areas, however, the court requires the government to show far more than mere rationality. In these areas, the government is subject to “heightened scrutiny,” in the sense that the courts will require a convincing demonstration that the discrimination is genuinely necessary to promote an important social goal.

Heightened Scrutiny

Under heightened scrutiny, racial discrimination is usually struck down. If the government treats white people better, or worse, than African-Americans, it has to explain that the difference is required for some neutral reason, not involving prejudice, stereotyping or hostility.

It took many years, and a lot of vigorous advocacy (above all from then lawyer and now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), but the court was eventually convinced that discrimination on the basis of sex should similarly be subject to heightened scrutiny.

The basic idea is that women have faced a long history of unfair stereotyping and have lacked the political power of men, so sex discrimination is likely to reflect prejudice. As Justice William Brennan wrote for the court 40 years ago, such discrimination tended to put women “not on a pedestal, but in a cage.” Whenever the government discriminates on the basis of sex, it will run into serious constitutional trouble.

Until very recently, it would have been adventurous, and possibly even absurd, for anyone to suggest that the court should apply heightened scrutiny to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In these circumstances, it is historic that the Department of Justice has so argued, especially in the context of marriage.

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama initially signaled their acceptance of the argument in favor of heightened scrutiny, but it wasn’t until late last month that the department formally made the argument to the Supreme Court. It did so by asking the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

In an even more important and far-reaching step, the department suggested the court should invalidate the California law, enacted as a result of a ballot initiative, that denies same-sex couples entry into the formal institution of marriage while allowing them to become domestic partners.

The department’s brief says that heightened scrutiny is appropriate in light of the history of discrimination against gay men and lesbians, the absence of a relationship between sexual orientation and a person’s ability to contribute to society, the fact that the group is unified by a distinguishing characteristic, and the limited ability of gay men and lesbians to protect themselves in the political process.

California’s Law

The department insists that California’s law cannot survive heightened scrutiny because the purported justifications -- that it promotes responsible child-rearing, for example -- aren’t adequately supported by either logic or evidence.

By emphasizing heightened scrutiny for discrimination against gay men and lesbians, the department deftly avoids the objection, raised by some critics, that if states are required to recognize same-sex marriages, they will have to recognize polygamous ones as well. Indeed, the department doesn’t even contend that all states must recognize same-sex marriages. If the court accepted the department’s argument, it would be committed only to the narrow proposition that states can’t forbid same-sex marriages if they authorize same-sex domestic partnerships.

Nonetheless, if the department is right, it would not be so easy to avoid accepting a much broader proposition, which is that states engage in impermissible discrimination if they forbid gay men and lesbians from entering into marital relationships. That proposition doesn’t yet command a social consensus, but the nation, no less than the executive branch, is unquestionably moving in its direction.

Whatever the Supreme Court ultimately rules, the arc of American history is bending, and it is bending toward justice.

(Cass R. Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the co-author of “Nudge” and author of “Simpler: The Future of Government,” to be published in April.)

Author: Bella English

Publication: Boston Globe

Publication Date: March 5, 2013

When the twins came along, Casey McLaughlin left her job as a high school history teacher and stayed home with them. Now 2, Grant and Grace keep her busy, on a recent day demanding yogurt, Play-Doh — and Mama.

Like any other military wife, McLaughlin, 35, worries about her spouse’s possible deployments, combat duty, and the mandatory weeks of training each year. But when the Massachusetts National Guard holds retreats for married couples to help them better cope with the stresses of military life, Casey McLaughlin is not invited.

That’s because she is married to a woman, Major Shannon McLaughlin, 42, who has been in the military for 14 years. Shannon was deployed to the Middle East just after 9/11. She was a third-year law student at Boston College when her Navy Reserve unit was activated for nearly a year. When she returned, she completed law school. In 2005, she switched to the Army National Guard, where she is a judge advocate general, or lawyer.

Casey Brennan and Shannon McLaughlin married in 2010, but did not tell anyone in the military for fear that Shannon would lose her job. “It was dangerous for me to reach out to other wives,” says Casey.

In early 2011, Shannon’s unit was preparing to deploy to Afghanistan while “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was still in effect. Casey was six months pregnant, and Shannon decided she had to do something. “I took the very dangerous but necessary act of bringing her to a Yellow Ribbon event, which gets families ready for deployment,” says Shannon. “I knew I was going to be leaving my wife for a year with two new babies.” 

No one said anything negative to them while they were there; under the rules, military personnel can bring anyone to the event, including a friend. “Shannon was not allowed, however, to introduce me as her spouse, otherwise she would have risked discharge,” says Casey. 

In the end, Shannon’s unit was not deployed, and when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed in late 2011, they felt somewhat safer as a couple.

In the shadows for so long, Casey and Shannon McLaughlin now feel the need to speak out on behalf of other military couples like themselves, who they believe have been treated like second-class citizens.

The time appears ripe: a US Supreme Court case on gay marriage is expected to be heard March 27; on Feb. 11, departing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that 20 benefits will be extended to same-sex couples in the military, ranging from hospital visitation privileges to membership in family readiness groups; President Obama addressed the rights of gay and lesbian couples in his State of the Union speech; and a recent full-page ad in the New York Times quoted bipartisan leaders on the freeedom to marry.

In a major policy shift, the Obama administration in late Februrary filed a brief in the Supreme Court case declaring the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, “violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection” by denying thousands of married same-sex couples “an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples.”

Dozens of top Republicans have also signed a brief in support of gay marriage, including former advisers to President George W. Bush and former Massachusetts governors William Weld and Jane Swift.

After the November elections, a Gallup poll found that 53 percent of the public said that same-sex marriage should be legal. The McLaughlins are pleased at the Pentagon announcement that the military will now allow gay and lesbian personnel to receive some spousal benefits, but they feel it was late in coming and limited in scope.

“Before that announcement, Casey was absolutely invisible to the military,” says Shannon. “She was just like a roommate. She had no access to the base, no dependent ID card to get into the commissary, the base exchange, the bowling alley, swimming pool and lessons for the kids, the recreational activities, the discount tickets that make family life a little more enjoyable, a little easier.” The expanded benefits will not go into effect until Aug. 31 at the earliest, according to the Pentagon.

Shannon shops at the commissary, or military grocery store, at Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford because of the discounted prices, but Casey is not allowed in by herself because she has no military spouse ID card.

The military also holds marital retreats to support couples. Two years ago, the McLaughlins had just had their twins when Shannon got an e-mail about an upcoming retreat. “They said any couples who want to go, can go,” she recalls. Still, she decided to check with the chaplain in charge.

He told her he was sorry, but Shannon and Casey couldn’t come to the retreat because under DOMA, they aren’t considered married. “But he gave me workbooks to take home,” says Shannon.

The couple was married by Foxboroough Town Clerk Bob Cutler . Nine states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage. But under DOMA, the federal government does not, and military personnel are federal employees.

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, defines marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman. Gay and lesbian groups say it denies them equal protection.

Full benefits for same-sex partners in the military, such as health care and housing, would require the repeal of DOMA. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the law’s constitutionality this month. The Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law in 2011. 

When she was teaching, Casey had her own health insurance, but when she quit after the twins were born, she was not allowed to go onto her wife’s policy. She pays nearly $700 a month for what she calls minimal coverage. The twins are covered under Shannon’s policy.

And if Shannon needed base housing, she’d be assigned to officers’ bachelor’s quarters, even though she is part of a family of four.

The McLaughlins live in a Victorian in Foxborough that they bought and renovated. There are family photographs everywhere, and a large playroom filled with toys and books. In 2011, Shannon was elected to the Foxborough Planning Board for a three-year term.

Casey, who was impregnated with Shannon’s eggs and donated sperm, is “Mama,” and Shannon is “Baba.” On a recent afternoon, Shannon is still dressed in her work clothes: the Army fatigues she wears in her Wellesley office. In between the demands of Grant and Grace, the couple sit on a couch talking about Panetta’s announcement and the upcoming Supreme Court case.

They are also the lead plaintiffs in McLaughlin v. Panetta, in federal court in Massachusetts, and stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case on DOMA. The lawsuit seeks medical, dental, housing, and survivor’s benefits for military spouses in gay marriages.

“It was a difficult decision for me, because you don’t want to sue your employer,” says Shannon. “And for the most part, the military has been very good to me. But I just want Casey to be treated the same as other military wives, and I feel it’s disrespectful that she’s not."

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama touched on the issue, while Tracey Hepner, cofounder of Military Partners and Families Coalition, sat with first lady Michelle Obama. Hepner is married to the military’s first openly gay or lesbian general, Army Brigadier General Tammy Smith.

“We will ensure equal treatment for all service members, and equal benefits for their families — gay and straight,” the president said. 

Afterward, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force issued a statement calling for Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act: “Every day, LGBT service members put their lives on the line, yet they and their families continue to be treated as ‘less than.’ This is unconscionable.”

Shannon McLaughlin loves her job and is proud of her military record. “I’m really dedicated to serving my country,” she says. “It’s very rewarding.” But because of the difficulties with her marital status, she has thought about leaving the military, should the Defense of Marriage Act be upheld. 

“It is something I struggle with,” she says. “I don’t want anything extra that others don’t have. Just let me provide for my wife like any other person in the military.” 

She notes that Casey has to deal with what other service wives deal with: weekend drills, possible deployment, weeks of annual training, and the “usual run-of-the mill state emergencies” that occur. Shannon, for instance, was called upon to work the recent blizzard with other National Guard members. 

As she speaks, Casey holds Shannon’s hand and nods. “The jargon that they’re using to justify us not being equal is the same toxic argument they used when interracial couples wanted to be recognized, Casey says. “That to me is revolting.” 

But she’s optimistic that the Supreme Court will reject DOMA. “The faith and hope I have, being an American, is that the court is going to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.” With that, she goes to spoon some more yogurt into two hungry toddlers’ mouths.

Publication: CNN Money

Gay Americans pay more taxes for fewer rights

Editor's note: Suze Orman is a personal finance expert and hosts "The Suze Orman Show" on CNBC. She is a bestselling author of ten books, including "The Money Class."

(CNN) -- That nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage is encouraging progress for those of us who believe that everyone deserves to have basic civil rights. But, even if every state in the country could pass a similar legislation, it would not be enough. What we need is for our federal government to step up and make this basic right a law of the land.

Beyond the social discrimination, the refusal of our federal government to legally recognize same-sex marriages imposes steep financial penalties on same-sex couples. That two of the most costly penalties are triggered upon the death of one partner just adds to the ache of the senseless discrimination.

I have been with my partner, Kathy Travis, for 12 years. If I am lucky I will spend the rest of my life living and sharing my joys and happiness with her. We have worked very hard as a team to save for our future together and consider everything we have as equally owned by the other.

If the federal government recognized same-sex marriage, then when one of us dies our assets would seamlessly transfer free of tax to the survivor. That's a basic right that every heterosexual married couple has.

But because there is no federal recognition of same-sex marriage, if I die first, or vice versa, before either of us can inherit what is now jointly our assets, there would be a federal estate tax bill that one of us would currently have to pay. Again, to be clear: If we were a heterosexual married couple, there would be no estate tax regardless of the size of the estate or who died first.

This spring, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court needs to do the right thing and end discrimination against gay couples.

We all have 83-year-old Edith Windsor to thank for in pushing the issue of same-sex marriage equality on to the national front. Edie and her partner Thea were together for 40 years. How many marriages do you know that have lasted that long? But when Thea died in 2009, Edie was hit with a $363,000 federal estate tax bill because as a same-sex couple they were not eligible for the unlimited marital deduction. Are we really a nation that says it is fair and just to demand Edie pay a $363,000 penalty because she is gay?

There's another penalty that's even worse. Regardless of the size of their estates, every gay couple is discriminated against when it comes to Social Security benefits.

Married heterosexual couples can maximize their Social Security retirement benefits by taking advantage of the highest-earner's benefit. When both spouses are alive, the lower earner can opt to collect a monthly benefit check that is equal to 50% of his or her spouse's benefit. For many married couples, that 50% spousal benefit is often much higher than what the lower-wage-earning spouse could collect based on his or her own earnings record. Most important, when the high earner dies, the surviving spouse is allowed to collect 100% of the deceased's higher benefit.

Because same-sex marriages aren't recognized on the federal level, gay and lesbian couples are not eligible for Social Security spousal benefits. The lower earner cannot claim any benefits based on the higher earner's benefit. A heterosexual couple married for just a few months is able to collect a federal benefit that same-sex couples who have been together for decades can't. Are we really a nation that says that is fair?

Beyond those two glaring death penalties, health insurance is another area of severe federal financial discrimination against gay couples. I am so glad to see more employers extending health insurance benefits to same-sex partners. But because same-sex couples are not considered legally married under the eyes of the federal government, the dollar value of the health coverage is considered taxable income.

A 2007 study estimated that this gay health insurance penalty costs same-sex couples an aggregate $178 million ($1,069 per household), while employers paid an additional $57 million in payroll tax on that taxable income. No heterosexual married couple or their employers pay that penalty. Again, are we really a nation that says that is fair?

The social and civil discrimination that persists as long as our federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage is inexcusable. Add in the financial discrimination gay and lesbian couples face and the current policy becomes all the more indefensible. 

The Respect for Marriage Coalition is a partnership of more than 100 civil rights, faith, health, labor, business, legal, LGBT, student, and women's organizations working together to end the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and grow support for the freedom to marry. The Coalition is co-chaired by Freedom to Marry and the Human Rights Campaign.

Publication: The Windy City Times

Publication Date: March 3, 2013

At a Respect for Marriage Coalition press conference, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National filed an amicus brief on Feb. 28.

Standing as one of the families profiled, the Neubeckers represented PFLAG National as part of a broad bipartisan coalition of organizations planning to submit amicus briefs.

The amicus brief resulted to support the plaintiffs in the landmark Perry v. Hollingsworth case, which disputes the constitutionality of the Proposition 8 legislation in California that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on March 26 and 27.

 The brief included PFLAG families sharing their first-hand perspectives and the impact they face due to the law's lack of equal protection toward same-sex couples as well as the entire family.

Three generations of Neubeckers participated in the national campaign. PFLAG members Mike and Janice Neubecker, their son Lee and Lee's partner, David Neubecker, and one of David and Lee's two children, Braiden, traveled to Washington, D.C., from Michigan and the near west suburbs of the Chicagoland area to speak on behalf of PFLAG families everywhere.

"This is really important because it's a message to the court of why my son and his partner should be allowed to get married," Mike said. "It's very personal and this is an important case. My wife and I have lived in foreign countries, we've lived in several states across the country, and we've never had to get remarried in another country or another state because of not recognizing our marriage. It's universally accepted and I want nothing less for my son and my son-in-law. They are not second-class people, they're not second-class citizens, and their love is not second class."

Mike calls David his son-in-law as he stands as an optimist on the future of same-sex marriage. Speaking at the press conference, Mike said he felt privileged to be part of the amicus brief for PFLAG. 

More than the facing the issue of marriage equality as a couple, David and Lee are concerned about having their marriage recognized for the sake of their children, Braiden and Michael, whom they adopted from foster care three and a half years ago. The couple, who live in Chicago's west suburbs, married in California in 2004, explains they want to protect their family and be treated the same as any other family in America. 

"It's been difficult for our family in some ways because we've spent so much time building up a feeling of trust and safety with our kids," said David. "Given our backgrounds, the public debate of the validity of our family has caused our children to feel somewhat insecure. They've questioned whether they were going to be removed from their home because they hear that the government doesn't support our marriage and when they're processing that in their minds, they're worried they're going to be taken away from us."

According to Lee and David, the family feels supported within the community they live in and they participate in all the same everyday activities such as baseball practices, Girl Scout meetings, volunteering at school, grocery shopping, and doctor's appointments. However, when it comes to filling out various school or government forms, they say they feel degraded as a couple and the children are confused with a feeling of insecurity as they are forced to select the "single" option.

"It forces us to answer the questions in a way that's legally valid, which is repudiation of our relationship," said Lee. "It's not lying; it's a misrepresentation in terms of how we feel."

Lee and David have been active in the fight for gay rights since they were teens. Now they are part of the Illinois marriage equality campaign. When watching president Obama's inauguration speech, they noticed 10-year-old Braiden comprehending and getting excited especially when she heard him say he supported gays and lesbians' ability to get married. She reacted with a fist pump and cheer. 

"I was proud she was so excited about that, but it was also a wake-up call that she was really in tune to the issue and she was realizing we are treated differently," said David. "We've tried to protect them as much as possible from that, as any parent would. I think that's galvanized us more in just wanting to have our family treated the same as any other family and to provide that additional security for our child that any parent would want."

Braiden took action. She wrote a letter expressing her personal feelings about her family and the issue of marriage equality. Her grandfather presented the letter at the press conference. It has also been published and shared in various other forums, including Windy City Times. A shy child by nature, as her dads describe her, this letter was a significant step and they are proud to see her stand up for her beliefs with courage.

"I thought of things I felt and they [her dads] felt," said Braiden of the content in her letter. "It's changing people that think that gay rights shouldn't be right."

 According to Lee and David she is learning she can stand up for not just herself, but she can stand up for her family and have a voice and that that voice can be heard and respected. Lee anticipates his children's' story is unique and may be just the type of story that can change an uncertain Republican or Democrat's perspective.

 "Quite often the adults look at this issue from an adult perspective and they get very wrapped up in what it means from a historical perspective and what it means in different religious bodies, but when you look at it from the eyes of a 10-year-old, they really kind of bring it all into focus—treating families fairly, treating one another the way you would want to be treated," said David. "You could say it much more simply than that and have it make so much sense. I think Braiden's been able to bring some clarity to the issue that's gotten lost."

 See Braiden's original essay HERE. 

See related story, VIEWPOINTS My family and marriage equality by Braiden Neubecker, age 10 1/2, HERE.