E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSupporters of same-sex marriage hope for a boost this week when dozens of high-profile Republicans, many no longer in office, submit their legal argument to the Supreme Court on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed, bucking their party's platform in a move that one who had a change of heart on the issue said would “strengthen our nation as a whole.”
More than 80 Republicans are signatories to the "friend of the Court" brief to be filed in the case over Proposition 8, a California law banning same-sex marriage, according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is waging the legal battle against the law. The nation’s high court will hear arguments in the case in late March. The New York Times first reported on the brief.
Credit: Stephen Lam / Reuters file
Meg Whitman, HP's chief executive officer and president, at a meeting on Jan. 16. She says she has had a change of heart on the issue of gay marriage.
One scholar described the effort as “inconceivable” just two years ago, and one of the signers, former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, said in a blog that she had changed her mind on the issue, “like several others who have either sought or held public office, including President Obama.”
“As the Republican nominee for governor of California three years ago, I supported the majority of Californians who voted for Proposition 8 and against same sex marriage,” Whitman, president and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Co., said in a separate statement. “After careful review and reflection since then, I have come to embrace civil marriage for same sex couples.”
She noted in her blog that same-sex families “should have equal access to the benefits of marriage” and later added: “Establishing a constitutional right of marriage equality in California will strengthen our nation as a whole.”
Six former governors, including Jon Huntsman of Utah and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, and members of President George W. Bush’s cabinet, such as former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, four former and two current members of Congress signed the brief, AFER said. Members of the Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain presidential campaigns also signed.
The brief will be filed Thursday, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. Additional names were still being added to it, said AFER, which noted one of its lead attorneys on the case was a conservative, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, who argued for Bush before the Supreme Court after the disputed 2000 presidential election.
Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor and author of “From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage,” called it an “incredibly important development” and noted the brief could influence Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom he said was the swing vote on gay marriage.
“The fact that more and more Republicans are coming out in favor of gay marriage simply confirms how dramatic the shift in public opinion has been -- and that is a fact that likely is of great significance to Justice Kennedy,” he wrote to NBC News in an email. “Even two years ago, it would have been inconceivable that this many prominent Republicans would have been willing to buck their party platform on the issue.”
In an article last week, former Republican presidential candidate Huntsman wrote that as governor he had backed civil unions but now was supporting marriage for gays and lesbians.
“The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans,” he wrote. “This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.”
Huntsman’s argument echoed parts of the legal brief, which The Times said made the case that allowing same-sex marriage would promote conservative ideals of limited government and individual freedom as well as provide the children of gay couples a two-parent home.
The legal brief was dismissed by the National Organization for Marriage, which on Monday pledged $500,000 to defeat Republican lawmakers supporting any law to allow same-sex marriage in Minnesota, a state considering such legislation.
“None of these people are actively in politics. They are not running for office because they know … supporting same-sex marriage will end your career if you’re a Republican,” said Brian Brown, NOM's president. “There’s overwhelming support for traditional marriage in the Republican party, that’s why it’s part of the party platform, and any attempt by the establishment to redefine marriage and redefine what it means to be a conservative will mean the death of the Republican party.”
But LGBT groups said the brief was further proof of changing attitudes on the issue. Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry who saw the brief, said the list included Republicans going back to the Reagan administration.
He noted Meg Whitman’s new position represented a “significant shift,” while others who had signed, such as Republican Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York, have also sponsored federal legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Steve Schmidt, who worked on the 2004 Bush re-election effort and as chief strategist on McCain’s 2008 presidential bid, has been a “powerful supporter” of same-sex marriage, Solomon said.
“I think most importantly, it’s the broad swath of leaders” on the list, Solomon told NBC News. “We’re no longer just dealing with … one or two ‘mavericks’ who are willing to sort of stick their neck out. …
“This is a big swath of Republicans, of mainstream Republicans, who view the freedom to marry as part of their conservatism rather than something separate from it.”
The Supreme Court will also hear arguments in late March on Section 3 of DOMA, which the Obama administration has encouraged the justices to strike down. In its argument, the federal government noted that Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states was evidence that anti-gay discrimination remained a major problem.
Related:
US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples
Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue
Leave a Comment:
What a QUEER country we have become!
Could be worse.. we could remain a bigoted country and go against our own constitution " We the People" unless you are gay.
YES we are queer and it is WONDERFUL...I love my gays and lesbians!!! If you have a problem with it- evolve your thoughts...We are everywhere and we are not going anywhere...get used to it!! AND we have always been a QUEER country...We are just not pushed in the closet anymore by hate-filled bigots anymore. Simple as that.
Yes, yes, we republicans can exploit your votes also and not give you anything of substance. GOP,GOP GOP... They (homosexuals) thought Obama Supported them through the first election (he didn't say a thing until he was up for re-election and then he was all like "he's coming around to it" only after that guy that looks like Dr. Phil [axelrod] misspoke on the subject). Now he's gone back in the closet. Samething with Latinos and blacks. No proposed legislation he's pushed for (not talking about a rally or SOTU where he mentions it to get the crowd warmed up). I mean all out assault like he did with Obamacare. He can sign a executive order to kill someone, but not one for a group of citizens he continuously says he fighting for over the last six to eight months.
Ummmmm......Obama first came out in full support of marriage equality in 1996, but you clueless bigots weren't paying attention.
And in 2008 he ran on getting DADT and DOMA repealed.
Civil rights issue not bedroom preferences. Equal protection under the law not real hard to fathom or understand. Stop snooping and mind your own business. Would also like to remind the thumpers, we are still a secular society, much to your dismay, but suck it up its going to stay that way. Christian/sharia law no welcomed here nor wanted. Take care of your own bedroom problems, if it isn't about money then its about sex and social engineering--GOPers and baggers on the wrong side of history, again. Sit down and shut up, sick of you boogers.
Thank you skyparrot...well said...the bigots and thumpers are getting outnumbered these days- thankfully...Equal rights for all.
WOW! It looks like the GOpeers are finally getting it. "We the people", want They need to get with the times if they want any type of future in our government.
I am absolutely for gay marriage. But more than that, I am for initiative and refferendum. I think that each state, or even the US Congress should bring this into law. It is the law of the land in my own Iowa (unfortunately by judicial fiat) but the sky has not fallen. We're doing all right out here in the middle. But let's do this thing the right way.
Nice thought, but tyranny of the majority never works re. public input--inter-racial marriage would still be the law of some states, the 13th Amend. would never have been ratified, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been passed, segregation would still be the law of the land in the New South, Jim Crow and poll taxes would also be in effect, the list is endless. The majority if it had its druthers would never bestow equal civil rights on a minority, historical fact.
Thank you for your support, truly. My question for you is this: Why do those of us who stand to benefit have to wait that long for this to all sort itself out at a state level? How is that fair? I pay my taxes just like you do.
The fact is federal say-so is needed because states aren't sorting this out quickly enough and in some states it will *never* get sorted out. Do you honestly believe I ought not to have the right to live in one state versus another simply because of that kind of rhetorical and decidedly religious-based gridlock? My life just gets to be indefinitely on-hold until everyone finally sees the sound reason and logic of not letting their religious beliefs influence civil rights?
I'm sorry, Gregorovich, but I don't think it's possible that will ever happen and that is why a civil referee, the Federal Government (which mandated the tax rights and civil privileges of marriage in the first place) needs to step in and bring about a new standard where *all* are equal, and no one's civil rights are left in limbo.
If you are for gay marriage and live in Iowa, you do not want to be for referrendum. That means "majoritarian" and "tyranny by majority". There are alot of people in Iowa that are against it and a referrendum will for sure outlaw gay marriage there. It would be like having a dictatorship but the dictator would be the people themselves. You do not want that.
It's a civil rights issue, and the civil rights of a minority shouldn't be put to a vote by the majority. That's why we have courts and a bill of rights, to protect the civil rights of individuals against the tyranny of the majority.
Your state did it exactly the right way. If it had been put to a public referendum or a legislative vote in your state it most certainly would have lost.
In fact the Varnum v Brien ruling set the standard for every other court in the country, even if it can't be cited as controlling precedent.
I feel the ranks of the Tea Party swelling.
I can smell the rank of the Tea Party
Swell
Common, thanks very good word play---hahahahaha
Meanwhile the Baggers are already swollen and bloated with their own ofoal--can hear the methane hissing from the leaks.
Done deal, get over Baggies, move on to something else, like stonings and burnings.
RINOs.
compared to the long history of the gop, the current republicans are the rinos. It USED to be that the gop was for limited gov't, etc....not into social issues and forcing views on people.
HOW is equal treatment for people "forcing views on people"? There is nothing forced here- simply rights that should be given to everyone. GAY and straight.
Nobody is asking you to participate in any ones bedroom pleasures, stay home. What pray to tell are you being forced to do what, be civil and respectful in public--same rights you are afforded under the LAW!
This is what real small government pro personal freedom conservatism looks like. True political conservatisim has nothing to do with narrow minded religious dogma that requires that people not only not be gay, but not tolerate anyone else being gay even when it has absolutely nothing to do with them. The current batch of religious conservatives have nothing in common with political conservatives. The republican party allowed itself to be hijacked by religious groups. I hope this a sign that they are trying to get out of the business of monitoring other people's bedrooms and doctors visits, and get back to the idea of limited civil government.
typical politics, they dont care whats right, legal, moral, they want votes to keep them on the payroll???? its all about keeping on the peoples payroll and getting our money???? they are all immoral, and crooked themselves! ! ! ! its gettijng a lot closer to the revolution than they think? ? ?? ?
what ever happened to the theory that they were there to work for us???? that has gone by the wayside, only to have them do TO us, and satisfy themselves and their stolen comfy lifestyle! ! ! !
with most people supporting gay marriage, it sounds like THESE republicans have decided to "work for us".
and gov't isn't here to legislate morality that doesn't hurt anyone else. Unless you want them to make, oh, premarital sex illegal? :)
If, as Joe Huntsman has pointed out, the Republican Party truly believes in "the Founders’ vision of a limited government," the Party is stuck with that position, even for groups some of its members don't like.
Limited government means saying no to Big Brother, the Morals Police and the Religious Right, which sadly has hijacked and distorted the Republican Party. From a constitutional standpoint, it is indefensible to say that same-sex marriage and all of the rights that flow from it are not simply a matter of equal protection. The Republicans who have flipped from the anti- side to the pro- side understand that. We don't have to like everybody to acknowledge that in America, everybody should have the same opportunities and benefits.
The only arguments against same-sex marriage are from old testament fundamentalists, christian or otherwise. What they call traditional marriage is anything but. Thank goodness for women we don't have the traditional marriage found in biblical times where women were the property of men and could be beaten, divorced, enslaved, murdered or traded by their husbands.
We are a country where the Constitution is the law, not religious treatises. If the latter were true, we would still be burning people at the stake and torturing them. In the European countries where same-sex marriage has been legaized, there has been no change in the divorce rate of opposite-sex couples and none of the other baseless societal calamities hysterically predicted by religionists.
Not blatantly unconstitutional laws like DOMA.
Ironic though that the "party of limited government" wants to control who you marry. No surprise given that the GOP is comprised of bigots and Christofascists.
Prop 8 was nothing but a hate filled measure to further the attempt to make gays less than human...THANKFULLY, many have actually used their minds, evolved and understand that a gay or straight partnership should be treated EQUALLY...gays and lesbians who want to get married should be able to...gays and lesbians who have been together for years, raised families SHOULD be able to get married, should they choose...Equal rights for all...Stop the ignorant nonsense and make it equal EVERYWHERE.
Mormon Church poured tens of millions into that defeat and now backed off the stance--hmm, wonder why?
I wonder if Former Vice President Cheney signed the proposal? His daughter is married and a lesbian. Oh, that is right. It is private "family matter" that at the time could not enter polite political discourse.
He hasn't signed on yet but I wouldn't be surprised if he did by Thursday.
Skrekk, don't believe Cheney will, never came out in public in support of Gay rights, why would he do so now?
Skyparrot, Dick Cheney already came out in support of marriage equality in 2009.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/dick-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/
What are the Republicans (conservatives) going to do their party is for Gays and next Abortions
The go along to get along GOPers. Expediency over principle. Wonder how many of them engage in the practice?
Engage in what practice?
I would be more impressed if the Republicans that signed this were still in office. Why do people care who anyone else gets married to? Doesn't affect me at all who you marry. If you want kids and you are gay...who cares? As long as you can feed and clothe them and give them love...big whoop. People need to just learn to mind their own business and the world would be a better place.
The National Organization for Marriage probably believe the earth was thought up by "their" god, for them. We now know this explanation for our existence isn't close, and that many species have always had same sex relations.
That is great news. I knew there were other republicans besides me that support it. All they need to do is take it off their platform because more people are getting in favor of it and if they don't, alot of people won't like the republicans and then democrats will take over. It needs to be taken off the platform because eventually the majority is going to feel alienated and the majority is not the religous "right". Hell, some Christians are starting to see the religious "right" as wackos.
Anal sex may make a person more susceptible to bacterial infection around the anus and rectum. This is because the lining of the rectum is not as heavy as the lining of the vagina, so it is more susceptible to tears. If the anus or rectum does get torn, it does not heal as quickly. Because feces that pass through the rectum contain bacteria, any tear in the lining is at risk of getting infected. Lining tears may lead to other problems such as an anal abscess, which can make transmission of STIs and HIV more likely.
In extreme cases, a tear in the lining can develop into a fissure (a larger tear or crack) and may extend outside of the bowel. This is called a fistula and it is a significant medical issue because it allows feces to pass outside of the bowel, and requires major surgery to repair.
why are you obsessed with anal sex? this discussion has nothing to do with anything you posted.
You are one creepy dude, lol.
Fine...then tell heterosexual couples to refrain from it....and open your eyes while you are at it.
Deport, what exactly does your fixation with anal sex have to do with "gay marriage"?
Hate to say this but anal sex is done even when it is man on woman. It isn't always homosexuality.
What's that got to do with a civil property contract? Are you suggesting that straight couples who engage in anal sex not be permitted to marry? How do you propose to enforce this?
GOP, sex obsessed, money, and social engineering.
Equal protection under the law will be the Law of the Land, in all 50 states, suck it up, get over it, gonna happen and behave yourselves, stop being snoops and fantasizing stuff that isn't your business, leave people alone to live their lives and love whom they want.
WOW- Just like the GOP thinking about Prop 8 instead of the looming SEQUESTOR that hits Friday.
To be fair, most of the people who signed this are no longer in public service.
I guess I am one of those "exploding heads" that was talked of in the first few comments!!! Just because "everyone is doing it" does not make it right! Popular does not equal correct.
I am not against people loving each other but to try to equate a relationship between two persons of the same sex and that of Marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years is wrong. Many Republicans have agreed that if gays want to be legally joined to gether...let them create a terminology for that union but leave "marriage" alone!! We all have the choice to either be light or darkness...the choice to do right or wrong!! Let's all agree that we must be willing to be responsible for our choices and live with the consequences of our choices and actions!!! Couples who have sex outside of marriage and result in a child should take responsibility for their actions and provide for that child...giving them a loving two parent home where they can grow and be nurtured. Homosexual couples should realize their relationship can never equal a heterosexual couple due to their inability to , without outside contribution, have natural born children.
Therefore, I do not believe that gays should ever have the right to adopt or act as parents...Since by very nature, they can not have children on their own. The design of their bodies and the makeup thereof prohibits natural procreation and as such should serve as the deciding factor as to the ability for gays to serve as parents!! Heterosexual couples who have been unable to have children due to medical issues in no way correlates to gay couples and their desire to be parents. The heterosexual couples have "medical issues" ...gay couples have design issues!!! God is the designer and His rules should prevail in such questions!!! The introduction of genetic material from a "donor" of the opposite gender of the homosexual couple should not be allowed. The very thought by a homosexual couple to do so should serve as proof that their relationship is flawed and a nonproductive lifestyle choice.
so, infertile couples can't adopt for the same reason? lol.
and why do you own the word "marriage"?
You've got it backward, VoiceO; man created god. There is evidence, even written evidence, of man existing and prospering long before your "god" was thought of.
vermontguy...
please see my statements ..."medical issues" vs design issues!!! Heterosexual couples are designed to raise children ...gays are not. Heterosexual couples should be the group adopting children!!
God's rules do not apply. Which God? Whose God? Which interpretation? What about athiests? We are a country ruled by laws put into place by people, not gods. I say we look at the data and see if there is a problem with homosexual couples raising children. Are you suggesting that if there is not a loving two parent home that children shound not be raised in that situation?
Rick
odd...our nation during the years when we predominantly followed "My God" prospered and became a world power. A strong nation in which the entire world envied. But now as we have become "too smart to believe/enlightened" we find our nation in an economic and moral mess. It is not God who has deserted America it is America that has deserted God...and it has cost this nation dearly...both at home and abroad.
Before you start bashing Christians...I agree...many "who call themselves Christian" but do not follow the teachings of Christ have given, those who truely believe, a bad reputation. There are many who play games pretending to follow Christ but in truth simply follow themselves. I believe that if we all would truely follow the things of Christ none of these issues we debate would even exist. And the world would be a much better place.
cts..
Jesus Christ is the only true God!!! His teachings will lead any who follow them into a better life lived!! Btw many of those laws put in place by man were based upon the biblical Laws and precepts of JesusChrist and His teachings.
see my comments to rick
If parents would take responsibility for the children they have then the small number of children needing adoption would be easily taken care of by those who have medical issues that prevent them from having children
Why is your god the only god because you say it is wake up and smell the roses all religions were dreamed up by humans and written down by humans
voiceo. now would that be god the father, god the son or god the spirit, you got three to pick from to be your only true god. don't try to be wriggling out of the one god thing with the trinity stuff. that's man's construct pure and simple.
or maybe you don't have it all so lined out after all...
What I find funny is all the Christians are against Gays and Lesbians but the porn they watch is girl on girl...
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many". Human nature as it is, mostly chooses the easy path. It's far easier to sin than to always do the right thing by God. The gate of carnal lusts, and worldly pleasures, stands wide open.
More people are choosing to do what they want without restrictions, believing that if their numbers are big and strong enough it turns a wrong into a right. This life is but the blink of an eye. Yet so many people put so much "self" importance on the here and now.
I realize this will mostly fall on deaf & blind eyes and minds.
Let me put it simply. If you put a gun to my head and killed me, you still couldn't hurt me.
Unfortuneatly for unbelievers, if the same was done to you, you'd die.
But aren't us straights also doing what we want to do?
Anyone can do anything they want to. That's free will. You're missing the point.
The point is to do what's right and just. We all make mistakes. However, not correcting oneself and saying my sin is ok compared to everything else done on earth, does not make it right.
@MichelleA-3409055 Don't you realize that all they have to do is ask forgiveness and they are forgiven no matter what they do wrong but he will judge you for what you do wrong even though he is not suppose to judge people
Well sure, if they believe in fairy tales and the rules arising from them.
You are making the most critical error of your existance by denying God. Eternity is never ending and you gloriously choose unfathomable suffering.
The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party puts itself into corners from which it is very difficult to change because they choose positions that they percieve as going forward but even stampeding sheep move forward all the way to the cliff and even if those in the front stop they get pushed over the edge because of the momentum.
But if you ask a Republican their views they believe they are supporting individual freedom and responsibility when in fact those views in reality encourages requital such as through ostricism because by doing the opposite of the party questions your integrity and patriotism and they no longer percieve you as one of them.
The Republican Party has encased itself with those people that equate marriage as only a religious ceremony when in fact marriage has long ago left the realm of religion and now maintaining the legal validity of that action by the government. Is marriage a religious ceremony? Yes. But it is also a civil action. If a denomination does not want gay people to marry under a ceremony conducted by their rules then keep that action to what happens within your religion. But do not feel you have the right to impose upon others views that are appropriate for yourself and not part of what others think. That is freedom and personal responsibility.
But as long as the conservative religious community floods the election and the war chest process with votes and contributions there is little incentive for them to change especially when with all it's party members and wanna bees get elected to office thus an indication that they have provedence and legitimacy. Especially, with their perceiption of god's involvement.
And all of them are still on our dime. As long as we the people are footing their paychecks, they don't care what they sign. On another note, vote out all incumbents! All of them!
The piece said that only 2 of them are still in public service.
Doesn't matter, we pay their pensions.
All i have to say is DIScUSTING They wont get my vote
Keep trying that and by the time if they take "traditional marriage" off their platform and the majority of republicans support gay marriage arise, then who will you end up voting for?
Come on TPEEparty! Start spouting off good, like you're famous for. This could be the split that will finally be the end of that judgmental, holier then Thou party. Join the ranks of the Whigs.
I have one question for you and don't go looking on the net for the answer, what does the TEA party stand for?