A Victory For Marriage On The Horizon?
During a hearing of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, attorneys representing four states—Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee—argued before a panel of three judges that popular votes in those states preserving traditional marriage should stand.
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act last year, the gay rights movement has been on a long winning streak in the lower federal courts. Many of these lower court decisions have gone further than even what the Supreme Court decided in knocking down DOMA. The lower court decisions have struck down laws put in place by majorities of voters, and they have no doubt demoralized many people who believe in and are fighting for normal marriage.
The Sixth Circuit will be the third court of appeals to rule on marriage. The other two courts both decided in favor of same-sex marriage. But the Sixth Circuit is more conservative than the other courts, having twice as many judges who were appointed by Republican presidents as by Democratic presidents.
These three judges appear to reflect that two-to-one breakdown. In questioning yesterday, two judges seem very skeptical of arguments by attorneys representing gay couples. Appeals Court Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton repeatedly asked attorneys for same-sex couples why they didn’t think it was better to obtain marriage rights by winning the “hearts and minds” of citizens rather than through judicial fiat. Another judge expressed concern about overturning the will of the people. Those are two points that were completely ignored by other courts.
If this panel rules in favor of the states, this case could go to the Supreme Court, where there are only four reliable votes for traditional marriage. So, frustratingly, the status of one of society’s most important and enduring institutions may again depend on the whims of one person, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Will Obama Drop The Bomb?
One reporter thinks he just might. Let me explain.
National Journal reporter Ron Fournier said yesterday on a Fox News panel that if President Obama grants legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, it “would be a nuclear bomb that would blow open and make this country even more divided in a way that most Americans don’t want.”
This is a somewhat surprising comment coming from Fournier, who is a liberal reporter and supports illegal immigrants getting legal status. But he argues that an executive order is the most divisive way to do it. Fournier also said about Obama:
“The fundamental reason he became president was he was promising ‘There’s no red state, there’s no blue state—I’m going to bring the county together.’ He’s been a polarizing president…” The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard agreed with Fournier, and added that such actions by the president would create a “constitutional crisis.”
Fournier and Stoddard are right. And I give them credit for criticizing Obama for his unconstitutional power grabs when most of the Washington press corps refuses to do so.
Whatever Happened To #BringBackOurGirls?
Do you remember #BringBackOurGirls, the social media campaign launched in May to help rescue 276 girls abducted from a secondary school in northeast Nigeria? Well it turns out that the online campaign has been no match for Boko Haram, a group of men willing to prey on the weak and defenseless and die for the cause of establishing an Islamic state.
In a new piece for USA Today, I argue that if the Nigerian girls are rescued (and we pray that they are), it won’t be the result of hashtag diplomacy; rather, it will be due to serious diplomacy backed up by credible American strength. Click here to read the article.