Does Faith = Hate?

Rod Dreher had a thoughtful article at The American Conservative that quotes Maggie.  An excerpt:

This summer’s Windsor decision from the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, but it did not declare a constitutional right to gay marriage. Yet even Maggie Gallagher, the country’s most tireless and high-profile opponent of same-sex marriage, now believes such an outcome is a foregone conclusion.

“It’s clear that the courts are going to shut down the marriage debate and impose gay marriage uniformly,” she says. “There is not yet a unified sense of where we go from here, except for this: there is an accelerating awareness that the consequence of marriage equality is going to be extremely negative for traditionalist Christians.”

…To gay marriage supporters, homosexuality is, like race, a morally neutral condition. Opponents disagree, believing that because homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has to do with behavior, it cannot be separated from moral reflection. As Gallagher put it in a 2010 paper in Northwestern University’s law journal, “Skin color does not give rise to a morality.”Read More…

Reaction to Prop 8 Ruling

The Supreme Court has just abandoned 7 million voters, giving us no justice and no access to the courts..  The California Supreme Court made it clear that the proponents of Prop 8 are delegated the right to defend the law if state official refuse to do so.  But after accepting standing in DOMA because. . .well because it wanted to, the majority of the Supreme Court justices simply punted unable to recognize a clear injustice in kicking out of court people who have devoted thousands of hours to the democratic process –and $3 million to the defense of the law–that the Court today treats as beggars with no interest in the outcome. Read More…

Reaction to Supreme Court DOMA Ruling

Justice Kennedy has invented a new standard of ‘heightened scrutiny’ for laws which are new or unusual—that is to say most new laws: “DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the  benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages.”  Kennedy unfairly and illegitimately makes “custom” and ‘tradition” a sufficient reason to overturn the democratic branch of government—a standard which has never been applied when Congress passes new laws that affirm new leftist values.  Kennedy’s decision is not law, it is Justice Kennedy’s moral values written into our Constitution, and interfering with our rights as Americans to pass laws that accord with our values on marriage.”  Kennedy’s decision is the Roe v. Wade of this generation, not this generation’s Brown v. the Board of Educations,” said Gallagher, “Like Roe,  stepped in to disenfranchise millions of voters’ concerns to tilt unfairly the scale of justice controversial moral issue trending in a liberal direction.  But like Roe the deep questions involved in marriage will not simply go away:  At the heart of the gay marriage argument is an untruth: unions of two men or women are not the same as unions of husband and wife; The law cannot make it so, it can only require us to paint pretty pictures to cover up deep truths embedded in human nature.

SCOTUS Can’t Settle Marriage Question

Maggie was quoted at on the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on DOMA and California’s Proposition 8.

“I don’t think that the Supreme Court can settle a question as deep as what is marriage,” Gallagher said. “The future will be written. I don’t think anything is inevitable.”

This Generation’s Roe v. Wade

Dear friend,

Next week, the Supreme Court will probably rule on two marriage cases. They will decide whether 7 million Californians who passed Prop 8 have the Constitutional right to vote to define marriage as one man and one woman, and whether Congress can so define marriage for the limited purpose of federal law.

Pundits are predicting a messy, hard-to-interpret decision, possibly refusing to issue any ruling on the substance on the grounds neither the House nor Prop 8 proponents have standing.

Pundits have also worked overtime the last few months to reassure the Court that it can rule for gay marriage without fear of creating another Roe v. Wade.

On June 10, for example, the Christian Science Monitor published an op ed by James Richardson, a self-described “conservative communication strategist” who worked for the RNC and Jon Huntsman, “Why Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Won’t Be like Roe v. Wade.”

Read More…

Maggie on Justice Kennedy & Same-Sex Marriage in Bloomberg

Speaking on behalf of the American Principles Project, Maggie Gallagher had some insight into how “swing vote” Justice Kennedy may lean in the coming Supreme Court cases on Prop 8 and DOMA:

“Backers of Proposition 8 say they’re confident Kennedy will vote to uphold the measure and refuse to recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Even after new laws go into effect allowing gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington, only nine of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, will permit the practice.

“It would be unlike Kennedy to overturn the laws of 41 states,” said Maggie Gallagher, a senior fellow at the American Principles Project, a Washington-based group that opposes gay marriage.

Read More…

Maggie on Supreme Court Case in Politico

Maggie Gallagher is quoted twice in this recent Politico article noting the silence of GOP elites on the issue of gay marriage:

“I’m personally grateful to Speaker Boehner for being willing to defend the law, but it’s clear GOP elites don’t want to talk about it and want to keep it as quiet as possible,” said Maggie Gallagher, a founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a fellow at the conservative American Principles Project. “That’s so obvious, I don’t see any point in pretending otherwise.”

. . .

Read More…

2nd Circuit Strikes Down DOMA

Just in:

New York appeals court strikes down DOMA

New York (CNN) — A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday became the nation’s second to deem the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

The divisive Clinton-era law was passed in 1996 and bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and says states cannot be forced to recognize such marriages from other states.

The court determined that the federal law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. A federal appeals court in Boston made a similar ruling in May, but the moves are considered largely symbolic as the issue is expected to be eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In February, the Obama administration ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the law.

Read More…

The Supreme Court and the Creation of Culture (Obamacare): Justice Roberts Redefines Reality

We’re all still trying to digest what Chief Justice John Roberts just did in providing the crucial fifth vote to uphold Obamacare. I’m pretty sure he’s trying to digest it too.

I do not fault him for bending over backwards to try to find a legitimate reason to uphold Obamacare. Deference to the people’s representatives (even if the people don’t currently like our representatives much!) is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. But if we are to be a nation ruled by laws, not men, words have to have plain meanings. Communication must be possible.

Pres. Obama promised that this mandate was not a tax. In the law, it is described specifically as a mandate, a requirement. The money you have to pay if you decline to buy government-mandated insurance coverage is laid out in the legislation as a “penalty” for failing to do something the government is requiring you to do.

Robert’s decision to redefine the mandate as a tax also raises new questions, as Ilya Somin points out on if this is a tax what kind of tax is it?  If it’s a direct tax on the states, it must be apportioned proportionate to the population of the states. “If it is not an income tax, excise tax, tariff, or impost, it’s not a tax authorized by the Constitution—even if it also isn’t a direct tax

Read More…

The Christian Post: Proposition 8 Likely Headed to Supreme Court After Appeal Struck Down

There is no honest way to overturn Prop 8 without creating a fictitious right to gay marriage and inserting it into our Constitution. Now it’s up to the Supreme Court to leave the future of marriage to the good sense of the American people, rather than short-circuit the debate,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the Culture War Victory Fund, an organization that seeks to defend the core American principles of life, marriage and religious liberty.