Activists seeking to overturn court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage are focusing on the judges. In the on-going court process over California's Prop 8, those opposing same-sex marriage filed an appeal last week claiming that federal judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself because he is in a long-term relationship with a man.
Alliance Defend Fund (ADF) lawyers representing ProtectMarriage.com (Proposition 8's sponsors) said that Walker's sexuality per se was not an issue. “It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case,” said the appeal.
Instead, the ADF and ProtectMarriage.com claimed that Walker would have benefited from the same-sex marriage California because he was in a long-term relationship with a man.
ADF lead attorney in the case, Andy Pugno, said in a statement, “The American people have a right to a fair judicial process, free from even the appearance of bias or prejudice. Judge Walker’s 10-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires.”
During the Proposition 8 trial, talk of Walker's sexuality were rumors. Earlier this month, however, Walker told reporters that he did not recuse himself because no one asked him too and because it did not think it was relevant.
“If you thought a judge’s sexuality, ethnicity, national origin (or) gender would prevent the judge from handling a case, that’s a very slippery slope. I don’t think it’s relevant,” Walker said.
In Iowa, freshmen legislators are also attacking the credibility of judges.
The Iowa state Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution. Voters reacted by removing three of the justices last November, a rare case of judges being removed by an electorate. Freshmen legislators in the Iowa legislature introduced resolutions of impeachment for the remaining four justices for "malfeasance in office.” The charge is based on the claim that the court usurped the legislature and violated the separation of powers.
Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen (R-Hiawatha) has blocked the impeachment effort. “While I agree with much of the reasoning behind the impeachment resolutions, I disagree with this remedy. I do not expect it to be debated on the floor of the House, and if it is, I will vote no,” Paulsen said.
The freshmen do not have enough votes to force a vote, which means that the Iowa justices are unlikely to be impeached this year.
According to the National Center for State Courts, several states each year attempt to remove or impeach sitting judges. Many involve hot-button issues of family, child-rearing, and marriage, and few are successful.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 3, 2011 | Comments (27)
A federal appeals court decided today to allow the military to continue to enforce its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Politico reports.
An earlier District Court judge’s ruling found that the ban on openly gay military members was unconstitutional. The panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 today to extend a stay, lifting the lower judge’s order that kept the military from enforcing the policy.
Josh Gerstein reports that the ruling means the statute will likely to remain in place for months or years for another appeal, unless President Obama convinces Congress to repeal the law. In September, the Republican Party blocked a vote in the Senate to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” blocking a defense authorization bill.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at November 1, 2010 | Comments (1)
A federal judge has ruled that the National Day of Prayer, observed the first Thursday of May, is unconstitutional.
In Madison, Wisconsin, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics that brought a lawsuit against former President George W. Bush's administration. According to a 2008 Associated Press article, Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force at the time, was named in the lawsuit.
"It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the the American Center for Law and Justice, said in a statement.
In 1952, President Truman signed into law a Congressional resolution establishing a National Day of Prayer. In 1988, Congress named the first Thursday in May the official date for the National Day of Prayer.
Update: The Justice Department is appealing the decision.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 15, 2010 | Comments (48)
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was asked how his religious faith influenced his work on the court during a dinner honoring winners of a high school essay contest.
"I think that it really gives content to the oath that you took," Justice Thomas said. "You say, ?So help me God.' "
"There are some cases that will drive you to your knees," he added. "In those moments you ask for strength and wisdom to have the right answer and the courage to stand up for it. Beyond that, it would be illegitimate, I think, and a violation of my oath to incorporate my religious beliefs into the decision-making process."
(h/t Howard M. Friedman)
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 21, 2009 | Comments (8)
The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously decided today that a law declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, making its state the first in the Midwest to approve same-sex marriage.
The rest of this article was posted to CT's main site.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 3, 2009 | Comments (22)
The free speech rights of a Montana church were violated when it was told to register as a political committee after hosting an anti-gay marriage event in 2004, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals about Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church in East Helena, Mont., overturned a lower court decision.
The church participated in a "Battle for Marriage" satellite simulcast in 2004 and distributed petitions in support of a successful initiative to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman in Montana's constitution.
"We conclude that, by applying its disclosure provisions to the church's (minor) in-kind contributions in the context of a state ballot initiative, the commission violated the church's First Amendment rights," wrote Judge William C. Canby Jr.
In a concurring opinion, Judge John T. Noonan wrote that "An unregulated, unregistered press is important to our democracy. So are unregulated, unregistered churches."
Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund who
represented the church, welcomed the decision.
"Churches shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs," he said.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 26, 2009 | Comments (1)
More than 180 House members sent a letter to House Democratic leaders on Wednesday , calling for upcoming spending bills to maintain longstanding anti-abortion provisions.
"These measures ... reflect the moral concerns of many Americans who do not wish to see their tax dollars used for any organization that provides abortion services," said the letter.
The letter asks House Democratic leaders to maintain provisions such as the Hyde Amendment, in effect since 1976, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in limited cases.
Often called "pro-life riders," these provisions are usually included in spending bills by congressional committees.
"We believe a failure to include all of the current policies with regard to the right to life will mark a radical departure from a policy a majority of Americans support," the letter said.
Most of the letter's signees are Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio and Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 26, 2009 | Comments (2)
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal in a case involving a Michigan fifth-grader who tried to sell candy canes with a religious message at his school.
The high court on Monday denied the petition that the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund filed on behalf of Joel Curry.
Curry was 11 in 2003 when he made candy cane-style Christmas ornaments with notes that school officials considered "religious literature." The notes attached to the ornaments, titled "The Meaning of the Candy Cane," referred to Jesus six times and God twice.
Curry copied the message from an ornament at a Christian bookstore. He made the ornaments as part of a class project in which students developed and sold products. He faced no discipline, though school officials told him to remove the message, and received an `A' on the assignment.
Now a 15-year-old high school sophomore, Curry said he was disappointed in the high court's ruling, but the incident happened "a long time ago" and he doesn't "think about it much" anymore.
"They should have heard it because it's an important issue involving the Constitution and people's First Amendment right to freedom of speech," he said.
The Alliance Defense Fund had asked the high court to "consider whether a fifth-grade student's religious expression on a classroom project may be categorically identified as `offensive' and therefore legitimately censored by state school officials."
ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Saginaw School District and Curry's principal in 2004, claiming that the principal violated the Constitution's equal protection clause because, in the past, she allowed other students to sell religious-themed items.
In September 2006, a federal judge ruled that the principal violated Curry's First Amendment rights. A three-judge panel for the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed that decision.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 12, 2008 | Comments (2)
