Gay marriage advocates throughout the United States are celebrating the results of the Irish national referendum in which more than 60% of voters approved the legalization of same-sex marriage. At the same time, these advocates are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, a decision which would deprive American voters of precisely the same right exercised by Irish voters – the right to democratically determine the definition of marriage. Gay marriage advocates apparently fail to see the contradiction.
On Thursday, the Committee for Justice filed a Supreme Court amicus curiae brief in the gay marriage cases that the Court will hear April 28. CFJ's brief asks the Court not to invalidate the defendant States' traditional definition of marriage, but the brief takes no position on whether that is the correct definition.
CFJ president Curt Levey's proposal in a March 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed that Republicans "vow not to confirm the president’s appeals-court nominees until he rescinds his immigration fiats" drew positive reactions. Here are some examples:
In an op-ed in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal, CFJ president Curt Levey writes that Republicans should not confirm President Obama’s appeals-court nominees until he rescinds his unilateral immigration orders.
Today marks the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision striking down a federal ban on independent expenditures – campaign ads and the like – by corporations and labor unions. Because the myths about Citizens United remain just as prevalent five years later, they are worth addressing again.