On Monday morning, the Supreme Court surprised many by declining to hear appeals from decisions in five states striking down bans on same-sex marriage. As advocates of same-sex marriage cheer the march of progress, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that marriage equality affects individuals.
Our laws define us, if even by force, and so we move forward, wearing the shoes of the disenfranchised.
Facing off against a powerful company in arbitration is like playing a baseball game in which the other team hires and fires the umpires. So it's no wonder that, in consumer disputes, one study found that arbitrators rule for companies over consumers 94 percent of the time.
The Green News Report is also available via... ...
While your action last year told me that my heart (and tax dollars) were not welcome in my home state, the Supreme Court declared that you do not get to decide that I'm not equal in my birthplace.
Here are 5 quotes to empower US to ACCEPT and LOVE everyone the same. We are all on the journey together. Vote on which one is your favorite. S...
In light of the Court's five-to-four decision a little over a year ago in Windsor v United States, in which the Court held the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, it is virtually certain that the five justices in the majority in Windsor (Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) would take the next obvious step and hold state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional as well. Indeed, that is why lower federal court judges have been almost unanimous since Windsor in reaching that result. With that understanding, it is obvious why none of the four dissenters in Windsor (John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito) voted to hear this round of cases. But why did the justices who were in the majority in Windsor also vote not to hear these cases?
As a priest and pastor, I am grateful that bogus arguments distorting Christian values and deploying them as weapons of mass discrimination have been rejected by the highest court in the land.
Today the Supreme Court announced it would not hear a marriage equality case in the near future, turning down several appeals of lower court rulings that voided bans on same-sex marriage. No doubt this is a disappointment to many who have been waiting for the Court to declare marriage equality a constitutionally protected right. Yet the decision is still a major victory for LGBT rights. Same-sex marriage is absolutely necessary for our country to fulfill its constitutional promises of equal protection and due process of law. Yet there were good reasons for the Court to hold off on deciding the marriage question this term.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is heading for the exit, but before he goes, he has some good news for gay and lesbian couples.
Some would prioritize such broader social reforms over marriage equality, or even argue that winning marriage will harm such efforts by reinforcing the institution's undeserved special status.
Are we really so naive to think that a SCOTUS ruling is going to solve all our problems? Well, if not -- why is everyone waiting for the "Mission Accomplished" banner to appear?
Today the Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss seven petitions from five different states urging it to decide on the constitutionality of state laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage on a nationwide basis. No one knows if it will decide whether to take any of the cases at this time or defer its decision until a future conference this fall.
In perhaps a tiny but significant decision, an appeals court ruled federal authorities had shown "a profound lack of regard for the important limitations on the role of the military in our civilian society" when they allowed the U.S. Navy to scan the computers of every citizen in the state of Washington fishing for evidence.
A good deal of the growing lack of confidence in the Supreme Court these days is due precisely to the concern that the justices are increasingly voting in ways that reflect the political values and preferences of the presidents who appointed them. Americans, in other words, increasingly believe that the justices are voting as "Republicans and Democrats." If this is so, it is not because the justices are "repaying" the favor of their appointment, but because presidents have gotten better at selecting nominees whose judicial approaches are likely to lead them to vote in ways that more or less conform to the appointing president's own political values and preferences. But is any of this true? To test this possibility, I did a simple, back-of-the-envelope "study."
The sacramental side of marriage is quite significant, and when honored can be liberating in surprising ways. Women are still bearing a far greater share of responsibility for child-rearing. We need a female president to actualize the potential of the female gender.