Supreme Court to Decide Whether Constitution Supports Same Sex Marriage and Christian Groups Hope Judges Leave Decision to State Voters

By Junior Mayema,

I urge everyone to file a Friend-of-the-court brief ( Amicus curiae) , i myself will be filing the reason why i escaped persecution in Africa and the reason why it is very important for the USA supreme court to grant samesex marriages the legal recognition that it always deserve worldwide, people are becoming  refugee because of simply loving people of same sex here is my story with the UNHCR :
amicus curiae (also amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae, literally “friend of the court“) is someone who is not a party to a case, who offers information that bears on the case but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (the amicus brief) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin.
Here is what the USA justice Department is planning so far :
The U.S. Justice Department will file a brief urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage when it issues an opinion later this year deciding cases out of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday.The high court earlier Friday granted a review of a case raised by a Hazel Park lesbian couple who sued the state because they can’t adopt their three children without a legal marriage in Michigan.A federal judge in March 2014 found in favor of the couple, but an appeals court in November reversed that decision, upholding the Michigan’s same-sex marriage and those of the three other state’s now facing a Supreme Court review.

“The Supreme Court has announced that it will soon hear several cases raising core questions concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriages,” Holder said in a statement. “As these cases proceed, the Department of Justice will remain committed to ensuring that the benefits of marriage are available as broadly as possible…

“As such, we expect to file a ‘friend of the court’ brief in these cases that will urge the Supreme Court to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans. It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans–no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love.”

The court is expected to hear oral arguments in each case on April 27, 28 or 29. The exact date wasn’t immediately clear. A decision is likely to come by June.

Michigan’s Attorney General Bill Schuette has fought to protect the gay marriage ban, but supported a Supreme Court review.

“This case involves people of good will, sincerely motivated, on both sides,” Schuette said in a statement Friday. “All of Michigan’s voters, as well as the citizens of our nation, will be well served by the court’s decision to decide this case and resolve such an important issue. Therefore, I am pleased that the Supreme Court has chosen to review this case, so that important issues involving the fundamental institution of marriage, our Constitution and the rights of voters will be decided.

And here is the entire new news :

ame-sex marriage proponents in the Southland hailed today’s announcement that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether gay and lesbian couples have the right to wed under the U.S. Constitution.

The Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Church in Pasadena said the court’s announcement is good news not just for same-sex couples, “but for anyone who believes that liberty and justice for all really means it.”

Subscribe to News Alerts and a Daily Email Newsletter for South Pasadena Patch

Although same-sex marriage is already legal in California, the nation’s highest court will decide whether the Constitution’s 14th Amendment requires states to permit same-sex marriages, and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where it is already legal.

“This is a big step in our long journey toward realizing our nation’s founding promise that all of us, no matter who we are or who we love, shall be treated equally,” Mayor Eric Garcetti said.

“It is long past time to recognize that equal protection is not equal protection unless it protects all Americans equally,” Russell said.

“As an American citizen I believe in those core values we pledge to every time we pledge allegiance to our flag — liberty and justice for all. And as a priest and pastor, I believe in the biblical value that ‘the truth will set us free.”’

The cases being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court involve four states — Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee — where same-sex marriages are banned. Those states are among the 14 remaining in the country that do not allow same-sex unions.

The court is expected to hear arguments in April, with a ruling likely in June.

In March 2000, California voters approved Prop. 22, which specified in state law that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in California. But in May of 2008, the state Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated against gays, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples got married in the ensuing months.

Opponents of same-sex marriage quickly got Prop. 8 on the November 2008 ballot to amend the state constitution, and it was approved by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent.

In May 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 but also ruled that the unions of roughly 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed in 2008 prior to its passage would remain valid.

Same-sex marriage supporters took their case to federal court, and U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled in August 2010 that Proposition 8 “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Backers of Proposition 8 — — appealed to the 9th Circuit, because then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to do so. The appellate court heard arguments in 2011 but put a decision on hold while it awaited a state Supreme Court ruling on the ability of Prop. 8 backers to press the case forward despite the state’s refusal to appeal.

The state Supreme Court decided that Prop. 8 supporters had legal standing, so the 9th Circuit moved ahead with its consideration of the case, hearing more arguments on a motion by Prop. 8 backers asking that Walker’s ruling be thrown out because the judge was in a long-term same-sex relationship that he had not disclosed.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2012 that the proposition’s primary impact was to “lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

“It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships,” according to the court’s decision.

That ruling led to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2013 that Prop. 8 backers lacked legal standing to challenge the 9th Circuit’s ruling, clearing the way for same-sex marriage in California

And  Supreme Court to Decide on Gay Marriage Nationwide; Christian Groups Hope Judges Leave Decision to State Voters:

The Supreme Court takes on gay marriage: How each justice will (probably) vote


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s