NST Online Top Stories - Google News
NST Online Top Stories - Google News |
| High court gay marriage decisions due Wednesday - Wall Street Journal Posted: 27 Jun 2013 08:39 AM PDT WASHINGTON — In a historic day for gay rights, the Supreme Court gave the nation's legally married gay couples equal federal footing with all other married Americans on Wednesday and also cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. In deciding its first cases on the issue, the high court did not issue the sweeping declaration sought by gay rights advocates that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry anywhere in the country. But in two rulings, both by bare 5-4 majorities, the justices gave gay marriage supporters encouragement in confronting the nationwide patchwork of laws that outlaw such unions in roughly three dozen states. Gay-rights supporters cheered and hugged outside the court. Opponents said they mourned the rulings and vowed to keep up their fight. In the first of the narrow rulings in its final session of the term, the court wiped away part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act, that has kept legally married same-sex couples from receiving tax, health and pension benefits that are otherwise available to married couples. Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by the four liberal justices, said the purpose of the law was to impose a disadvantage and "a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states." President Barack Obama praised the court's ruling against the federal marriage act, labeling the law "discrimination enshrined in law." "It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people," Obama said in a statement. "The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it." House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he was disappointed in the outcome of the federal marriage case and hoped states continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Boehner, as speaker, had stepped in as the main defender of the law before the court after the Obama administration declined to defend it. The other case, dealing with California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, was resolved by an unusual lineup of justices in a technical legal fashion that said nothing about gay marriage. But the effect was to leave in place a trial court's declaration that California's Proposition 8 ban was unconstitutional. Gov. Jerry Brown quickly ordered that marriage licenses be issued to gay couples as soon as a federal appeals court lifts its hold on the lower court ruling. That will take least 25 days, the appeals court said. California, where gay marriage was briefly legal in 2008, would be the 13th state, along with the District of Columbia, to allow same-sex couples to marry and would raise the share of the U.S. population in gay marriage states to 30 percent. Six states have adopted same-sex marriage in the past year, amid a rapid evolution in public opinion that now shows majority support for the right to marry in most polls. The 12 other states are Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The day's rulings are clear for people who were married and live in states that allow same-sex marriage. They now are eligible for federal benefits. The picture is more complicated for same-sex couples who traveled to another state to get married, or who have moved from a gay marriage state since being wed. Their eligibility depends on the benefits they are seeking. For instance, immigration law focuses on where people were married, not where they live. But eligibility for Social Security survivor benefits basically depend on where a couple is living when a spouse dies. This confusing array of regulations is reflected more broadly in the disparate treatment of gay couples between states. And the court's decision did not touch on another part of the federal marriage law that says a state does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere. Indeed, the outcome of the cases had supporters of gay marriage already anticipating their next trip to the high court, which they reason will be needed to legalize same-sex unions in all 50 states. The Human Rights Campaign's president, Chad Griffin, said his goal is to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide within five years through a combination of ballot measures, court challenges and expansion of anti-discrimination laws. The rulings came 10 years to the day after the court's Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down state bans on gay sex. In his dissent at the time, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted the ruling would lead to same-sex marriage. On Wednesday, Scalia issued another pungent dissent in the Defense of Marriage Act case in which he made a new prediction that the ruling would be used to upend state restrictions on marriage. Kennedy's majority opinion insisted the decision was limited to legally married same-sex couples. Scalia read aloud in a packed courtroom that included the two couples who sued for the right to marry in California. On the bench, Justice Elena Kagan, who voted to strike down DOMA, watched Scalia impassively as he read. "It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here_when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress' hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will 'confine' the court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with," Scalia said. Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito, who also wrote a dissenting opinion, said their view is that Constitution does not require states to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Outside the court, some in the crowd hugged and others jumped up and down just after 10 a.m. EDT when the DOMA decision was announced. Many people were on their cellphones monitoring Twitter, news sites and blogs for word of the decision. And there were cheers as runners came down the steps with the decision in hand and turned them over to reporters who quickly flipped through the decisions. Chants of "Thank you" and "U-S-A" came from the crowd as plaintiffs in the cases descended the court's marbled steps. Most of those in the crowd appeared to support gay marriage, although there was at least one man who held a sign promoting marriage as between a man and a woman. In New York City's Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, where a riot in 1969 sparked the gay rights movement, erupted in cheers and whooping. Mary Jo Kennedy, 58 was there with her wife Jo-Ann Shain, 60, and their daughter Aliya Shain, 25. She came with a sign that could be flipped either way and was holding up the side that says "SCOTUS made our family legal". They have been together 31 years and got married the day it became legal in New York. Others were not celebrating. "We mourn for America's future, but we are not without hope," said Tim Wildmon, president of American Family Association, in a statement. Said. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council: "Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex 'marriage.' As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify." The federal marriage law had been struck down by several federal courts, and the justices chose to take up the case of 84-year-old Edith Windsor of New York, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009. Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them Spyer would not live much longer. Spyer had suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. She left everything she had to Windsor. Windsor arrived at a news conference in New York after the ruling to applause from her supporters and said she felt "joyous, just joyous." Windsor would have paid nothing in inheritance taxes if she had been married to a man. Now she is eligible for a refund. In the case involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Kennedy was joined by the court's four liberal justices. In the California ruling, which was not along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion was joined by Scalia and three of those liberal court members: Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. ___ Associated Press writers Connie Cass, David Crary, Jessica Gresko, Bethan McKernan and Larry Neumeister contributed to this report. Crary, McKernan and Neumeister reported from New York. —Copyright 2013 Associated Press |
| Obama won't 'wheel and deal' for NSA leaker Snowden - CNN Posted: 27 Jun 2013 08:30 AM PDT STORY HIGHLIGHTS
(CNN) -- While saying he is enormously concerned about what secrets self-avowed NSA leaker Edward Snowden may yet spill, President Barack Obama said Thursday he's not going to take extraordinary measures to capture him. "I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker," he told reporters during a news conference in Senegal, his first stop on a tour of several African nations. Obama also said he hadn't talked to the leaders of China and Russia about Snowden, in part because he didn't want to amp the issue into one in which he would have to start "wheeling and dealing" with foreign leaders on other issues in an effort to get Snowden behind bars. As Snowden seeks asylum, U.S. bides its time Meanwhile, leaders in Ecuador, where Snowden is seeking asylum, defiantly -- and probably symbolically -- renounced free-trade benefits with the United States Thursday amid a growing spat over the fugitive.   Some did it for the money, some did it for idealism, others didn't do it at all. The U.S. has seen a number of high profile leak scandals including the Pentagon Papers during the administration of President Richard Nixon. Click through to see more high-profile intelligence leaking cases. Sharing secrets: U.S. intelligence leaks HIDE CAPTION Snowden, whose acknowledged disclosure of secret surveillance programs angered U.S. officials and netted him espionage charges, is seeking asylum in the Latin American country, which has already agreed to shelter WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, said he would move to block Ecuador from two U.S. free-trade programs should the country provide harbor to Snowden. "Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior," he said. 4 options for the U.S. to get Snowden back Ecuadorian presidential spokesman Fernando Alvarado said Thursday the nation would spare Menendez and his Senate colleagues the trouble. "We will not accept any threats or pressure from anyone," he said at a news conference. "We will not deal or trade in our principles. No matter how important the trade advantage may be." The programs in question aren't free-trade agreements but rather U.S. laws that don't require Ecuadorian consent, and it wasn't immediately clear how Thursday's declaration would have anything more than symbolic effect. Despite the political rhetoric, Ecuadorian business leaders say giving Snowden asylum could be problematic for the national economy, which sent $9.6 billion of goods to the United States in 2011, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. "I would say so," said Roberto Aspiazu, head of the Ecuadorian Business Committee. "It's a risk to give asylum to Snowden because the United States, they could consider some economic sanction, including commercial sanctions. And obviously our commerce with the United States is very important." Still in Moscow Snowden apparently remained in limbo Thursday at Moscow's international airport, a free man according to Russian officials but with apparently limited travel options. Why would Snowden head for Ecuador? He didn't appear to board Thursday's flight from Moscow to Havana, where he had been rumored to be heading on his way to Ecuador or some other safe haven. While he has applied to Ecuador for asylum, that request has not yet been "dealt with" because Snowden is not in the country, Ecuadorian Political Affairs Secretary Betty Tola told reporters. She also denied the country granted Snowden refugee travel papers, as Assange told reporters this week. Opinion: Why Ecuador might shelter Snowden Assange said Snowden traveled from Hong Kong to Moscow on Sunday using documents provided by Ecuador. Ecuador denies providing any documents, and officials of other governments have not confirmed what documents the former CIA employee and National Security Agency contractor used in leaving the semi-autonomous Chinese territory, where he had gone to leak details of secret U.S. telephone and Internet surveillance programs. Hong Kong's decision to allow Snowden to leave despite the charges against him, as well as Russia's refusal to detain Snowden for U.S. authorities, have resulted in a diplomatic row between the United States and the two nations. U.S. officials have accused China of deliberately allowing Snowden to leave, while they have expressed frustration with Russia's refusal to detain a man they have portrayed almost as a common criminal -- on par with the seven Russian fugitives U.S. officials have repeatedly said they handed over to Russia in the past two years despite the lack of an extradition treaty. Snowden, 30, has acknowledged leaking sensitive details of U.S. surveillance programs out of concern the programs violate privacy rights and put too much power into the hands of government officials acting in secret. U.S. officials say the revelations endanger their ability to prevent terrorist attacks and could cost American lives. Possible Snowden posts On Wednesday, the technology website Ars Technica published portions of chat logs that it said showed comments made in 2009 by someone posting under a forum name Snowden was known to have used. The comments were critical of people leaking national security information. Commenting on New York Times reporting based on leaks related to confidential surveillance programs involving Iran, the poster compared the newspaper to WikiLeaks -- which enraged U.S. officials by disclosing thousands of confidential diplomatic cables. "Are they TRYING to start a war?" the poster wrote. "you don't put that s*** in the NEWSPAPER." Ars Techica said it could not be certain the poster was Snowden, but information revealed in the posts matches biographical information he has since publicly revealed. CNN could not verify the authenticity of the posts. If they were written by Snowden, however, they offer insight into his thinking at a time when he apparently was more accepting of government surveillance programs. According to Ars Technica, the poster said of the New York Times and its reporting on secret surveillance programs, "these are the same people who blew the whole 'we could listen to osama's cell phone' thingthe same people who screwed us on wiretappingover and over and over againThank god they're going out of business." Four years later, Snowden would provide news organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom with classified information he acknowledged copying and taking from his job as a computer contractor for the NSA in Hawaii. CNN's Carol Cratty, Elise Labott, Vivian Kam, Adam Levine, Catherine E. Shoichet and Joseph Netto contributed to this report. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Top Stories - Google News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
