NEW YORK CITY: US stocks closed mostly lower Friday after a three-day rally, with shares of BlackBerry hammered as the struggling phone maker reported a surprise quarterly loss.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 114.89 points (0.76 percent) at 14,909.60.
The broad-based S&P 500 lost 6.92 points (0.43 percent) at 1,606.28, while the tech-rich Nasdaq Composite Index inched up 1.38 (0.04 percent) to 3,403.25.
"US equity markets finished mixed, concluding the best first half performance in the Dow since 1999, as traders grappled with a plethora of disappointing corporate earnings releases and a larger-than-anticipated decline in regional manufacturing activity," Charles Schwab & Co. said in a market note.
The muddled close followed a three-day rally as worries eased that the Federal Reserve could move to tighten monetary policy sooner than had been expected.
In a coordinated effort, several Fed officials over the past two days stressed in speeches and briefings that markets had over-reacted to last week's Fed announcement that it could begin tapering its stimulus program later this year.
BlackBerry maker Research in Motion shares took a heavy hit, plunging falling 27.8 percent to $10.46 after turning in a surprise $84 million loss for the quarter to June 1, despite a pickup in revenues from the launch of the company's new smartphone.
Nike raced 2.2 percent higher after earnings beat estimates.
Shares of Biogen Idec, which makes drug therapies, jumped 3.1 percent, helped by an upgrade to buy from Citigroup.
Management consultant and outsourcing specialist Accenture lost 10.3 percent after reporting lower-than expected revenues in its fiscal third quarter and cutting its revenue outlook for 2013.
Dow members IBM and Cisco Systems fell, by 2.3 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.
Pfizer fell 0.6 percent after announcing a US$10 billion share buyback program. -- AFP
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 22-17 on Friday that embattled IRS official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights during a hearing last month on the agency's tea party targeting scandal.
The party-line vote paves the way for the committee to bring Lerner back to Congress and force her to answer questions from lawmakers.
The resolution before the committee said that by reading an opening statement proclaiming her innocence at the outset of a May 22 hearing, Lerner — who led the IRS division that allegedly singled out tea party groups applying for a tax exemption — relinquished her constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.
"I believe Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment protection," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said before the committee vote. "She made four specific denials. Those denials are at the core of the committee's investigation into this matter."
The committee hasn't yet scheduled a date to recall Lerner.
Oversight Republican staff told POLITICO they're open to pitches from Lerner's lawyer about how she might want to testify, including the idea of granting her partial immunity that would allow her to answer questions without fear that her testimony could be used against her in court.
Lerner's lawyer didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
If Lerner refuses to testify, the House could ultimately hold her in contempt. The new IRS leader, Daniel Werfel, asked Lerner to resign after her appearance before Issa's committee. When she refused, he placed her on administrative leave.
Democrats denied that Lerner waived her rights and criticized Issa for deciding that a congressional committee has authority to strip constitutional privileges from a U.S. citizen.
"I agree that she has information that is relevant to the Committee's investigation," said Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the panel's top Democrat. "But we must respect the constitutional rights of every witness who comes before the committee."
The panel rejected an amendment from Del. Eleanor Homes Norton (D-D.C.) that would have instructed the committee to hold a hearing on the legal matter in question and recall Lerner's attorney to hear his side of the dispute.
Issa dismissed calls for an additional hearing, repeatedly reminding Democrats that 37 delays have lapsed since Lerner first appeared before the panel and that he consulted the House counsel for advice on the matter.
(Reuters) - A witness in the murder trial of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman testified on Friday that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman during a struggle that led to the unarmed black teenager's shooting death in a central Florida gated community last year.
But Jonathan Good, a former resident at the townhouse complex, told the jury in Seminole County criminal court that he never saw Martin slam Zimmerman's head into the concrete sidewalk, undermining a key element in Zimmerman's defense.
"I did not see that," Good told the court under questioning by a state prosecutor about the racially charged case that triggered civil rights protests and debates about the treatment of black Americans in the U.S. justice system.
Police did not arrest Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, for 44 days. Zimmerman does not deny killing Martin but he says he did so in self-defense after he was attacked and Martin smashed his head repeatedly into the sidewalk.
Good was the fourth former neighbor who partially witnessed the death of Martin on February 26 last year to testify in the trial. Each has given slightly different accounts, but Good is the first to state that Martin was on top during the struggle.
Zimmerman, 29, was a neighborhood watch volunteer in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community in Sanford at the time of the killing. He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and could face life imprisonment if convicted.
Martin, 17, was a student at a Miami-area high school and a guest of one of the homeowners. He was returning after buying snacks at a convenience store when he was shot in the chest during a confrontation with Zimmerman.
Several former Twin Lakes residents have testified for the prosecution that they heard and caught glimpses of the fight between Zimmerman and Martin, and heard cries for help, on a dark and rainy night near a walkway between units in the community of townhomes.
Good said he was watching TV with his wife when he heard a noise outside and saw two people wrestling on the ground, with "a lighter-skinned man" on the bottom. He identified the other man, Martin, by his race and clothing.
Good initially told police the person on top was pummeling the other in mixed martial arts style, but backed off that, saying the person on top was straddling the other man, but his arms might have been holding the other down rather than punching.
Asked by state prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda if he saw the "person on top" grabbing the head of the lighter skinned man and slamming it into the concrete, Good replied "No."
In opening statements, defense attorney Don West told the court "Trayvon Martin armed himself with the concrete sidewalk and used it to smash George Zimmerman's head ... That is a deadly weapon."
Under cross-examination Good was asked why he had clarified his initial description about blows being struck. "That's what it looked like," Good said. But because it was dark outside, Good said "I can't 100 percent confirm that that was happening."
Good also said that he was not sure who made the cries for help that several neighbors have described, although he said "the yelling sounded like it was coming from the person on the bottom."
Three residents have told the court that they saw someone who appeared to be Zimmerman on top during the incident.
Even though several were close enough to hear the struggle, the prosecution has highlighted the fact that none of them heard a crude death threat that Zimmerman says Martin made moments before he shot him.
Prosecutors say Zimmerman profiled Martin, suspecting him of being up to no good, and killed him in an act of vigilante justice. The defense says Zimmerman was doing his job as part of the neighborhood watch and simply trying to investigate something that he perceived as suspicious.
The prosecution faces a tall order to win a conviction for second-degree murder, and under Florida law must convince all six jurors that Zimmerman acted with "ill will" or "hatred" and "an indifference to human life."
Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which was approved in 2005 and has since been copied by about 30 other states, people fearing for their lives can use deadly force without having to retreat from a confrontation, even when it is possible.
CIMB Investment Bank Research has raised its target price on shares of Gamuda Bhd to RM5.77 from RM5.60 after the property developer's core profit for the first nine months of its financial year came above expectations.
Shares of Gamuda gained 2.85 per cent to RM4.69, while the benchmark index rose 0.54 per cent.
The brokerage expects a stronger performance in the current quarter due to Gamuda's RM1.2 billion in unbilled sales and its ongoing work on the country's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)project.
New MRT lines could double Gamuda's outstanding order book of RM3.9 billion, CIMB said in a report to clients on Friday.
CIMB maintained its 'outperform' call on Gamuda, which remained its top-pick among stocks with a large market capitalisation.-- Reuters
Malaysia's benchmark stock index KLSE opened higher on Friday as Wall Street extended its recovery on expectations the US Federal Reserve would not curb stimulus amidst weak economic indicators.
The index rose 0.16 per cent in early trade, led by gains in SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd, which won a US$2.7 billion contract from Brazil's Petrobas on Thursday, and YTL Corp Bhd.
Local equities could continue to rise on Friday, supported by stronger external sentiment, HwangDBS said in a report.
The brokerage said stocks of interest included Muhibbah Engineering Bhd after the company was given a licence to participate in the construction of facilities and fabrication works locally, and MPHB Capital Bhd, which is listing on Friday.
The index was 0.59 per cent higher at 1,761.93 at 9.17am in Kuala Lumpur.-- Reuters
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.
NEW: President Obama says he doesn't want to make deals to get Snowden
NEW: Ecuador renounces U.S. trade benefits in the tiff over the asylum bid
NEW: Presidential spokesman: "We will not accept any threats or pressure from anyone"
Snowden remains in a Moscow airport as the world awaits his next move
(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.
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
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>>
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.
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.
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.
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.
[unable to retrieve full-text content]The ringgit gained against the US dollar in early trade today on fresh demand for emerging currencies, including the local unit, dealers said. At 9.05am, the ringgit was quoted at 3.1830/1860 to the dollar, against 3.1975/1995 at 5pm yesterday. A dealer said there was renewed concerns over the euro after European Central Bank officials made clear, any policy on fiscal tightening, remained a very distant prospect. The local currency was higher against the Singapore dollar at 2.5093/5132 from 2.5144/5165 on Wednesday, and strengthened against the yen to 3.2576/2623 from 3.2761/2795 previously. The ringgit appreciated against the British pound to 4.8789/8848 from 4.9126/9173 yesterday, and rose against the euro to 4.1452/1501 from 4.1711/1741 yesterday.-- Bernama
[unable to retrieve full-text content]China-based shoe maker, Maxwell International Holdings Bhd plans to spend RMB800 million (RM416 million) in the next three to five years for business expansion and diversification. Maxwell now has a cashpile of RM315 million and the capital expenditure will be mainly funded through internally generated fund. Of the total expenses, RMB500 million will be utilised to build a new shoe manufacturing factory at Henan province in China. Its chief executive director, Xie Zhen An said the first phase of construction will cost them RMB100 million and the shoe factory is expected to completed by middle of next year. "By end of next year, the factory shall commence operation," he told reporters after the company annual general meeting yesterday. Upon the completion of Henan factory, production capacity is expected to increase from the current 8 million pairs, to 28 million pairs of shoes, if it runs at full speed. The company produced 13 million pairs of shoes last year, half of it were outsourced. The rest of the expenditure will be spent on its fashion retailing business at Xiamen, China. Maxwell plans to set up a new boutique outlet and venture into e-commerce fashion business. "Other than shoe manufacturing, we are also into fashion, retailing and kids wear business. I believe this business model will work well and we will have a promising prospect," he said. On financial performance, the company expects a slight drop this year, dragged down by global economic slowdown and decrease in consumer spending. "This is very normal, business has good and bad times. Now the market is down slightly, but we think next year should be better," he noted. Maxwell's first quarter net profit slipped 13 per cent to RM9.2 million, compared with RM10.6 million in the corresponding period last year. Maxwell, which was listed on main market Bursa Malaysia in January 2011, is one of the nine China counters listed in Malaysia. Investors sentiment towards China stocks was dampened after Singapore's S-Chips scandal surfaced and Malaysia-listed HB Global's external auditor questioned about the company's financial status. The stock closed at 30.5 sen yesterday, a 70 per cent deep discount to its current net asset per share of 99 sen, and way below initial public offering price of 54 sen. Asked if Maxwell would privatise the company, its chief financial officer, Tan Swee Song said they are not considering this option at the moment, although some investment banks and fund managers had approached them. "We want to retain the public-listing company status to attract more new customers. And we are still new in the market, it takes time for investors to change their mindset. "However, in the long run, the company will not rule out the option if there is a good offer," he said.
WSJ's Jess Bravin discusses the Supreme Court's ruling on the the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that the federal government must recognize gay marriages in states where they are legal.
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court delivered the history-making ruling sought by gay-marriage supporters, striking down a 1996 federal law that denied benefits to same-sex couples.
The court was more cautious in a second case involving California's ban on gay marriage, Proposition 8, saying it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. But the result was likely again to benefit same-sex couples because it meant that a federal district court's ruling striking down Proposition 8 stands, clearing the way for gay marriage to resume in the nation's most-populous state.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 majority opinion nullifying the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and described the federal law as an assault on fundamental human rights.
Follow the latest reactions and real-time video, read the highlights from the Supreme Court decisions and get analysis from @WSJ reporters in Washington, California and beyond.
WSJ reporters were on the scene at the U.S. Supreme Court as crowds gathered to hear the Justices' decision to overturn the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Video by Rebecca Ballhaus and Andrew Aylward.
He said "no legitimate purpose" could justify the effect of the law, which he said was "to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."
The opinion capped Justice Kennedy's record as the high court's greatest champion of gay rights, coming after his 2003 ruling striking down state sodomy laws. It means that federal tax and other benefits accorded to married couples will now be extended to gay couples who are legally married in their state.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who read parts of his dissent from the bench, said the court shouldn't have ruled on the Defense of Marriage Act at all, and he also said the court was wrong on the merits.
In his bench statement, Justice Scalia heaped scorn on the majority for what he said was "self-aggrandizement" in their opinion. His written opinion described the ruling as "a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is."
Justice Scalia said the court should have deferred to Congress's wishes. "We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle," he wrote. "We might have let the people decide. But that the majority will not do."
Gay-marriage supporters were jubilant.
"Today we can go back to California and say to our own children, all four of our boys, 'Your family is just as good as everybody else's family,' " said Kristin Perry, who brought the California case seeking to get married in the state to her same-sex partner.
Defense of Marriage Ruling
Proposition 8 Ruling
President Barack Obama, who said last year for the first time that he personally supported the right to gay marriage, applauded the court's ruling, which upheld the legal view his administration had taken before the court.
The federal law "treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people," Mr. Obama said in a statement released by the White House. He said the Supreme Court has "righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it."
The president said he has told his administration to ensure federal benefits received by married couples are extended to same-sex couples "swiftly and smoothly."
Opponents of gay marriage said they would continue to fight the practice.
"Despite the Supreme Court's decision, the debate over marriage has only just begun. The court's decision does not silence the voices of Americans," said Austin R. Nimocks, of the Alliance Defending Freedom.
ProtectMarriage.com, the group that defended Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court and put it on the California ballot, said it would keep fighting in the courts to enforce the gay-marriage ban "until such time as there is a binding statewide order that renders Prop 8 unenforceable."
The sides in California debated whether the district-court ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker, which found a fundamental constitutional right to gay marriage, applied only in certain parts of the state or statewide.
San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera said he believed the ruling meant that marriage rights for same-sex couples would be "fully restored throughout California." Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, said on Twitter Wednesday that he instructed California's Department of Public Health to advise counties to issue marriage licenses to gay couples as soon as the federal appeals court stay is lifted.
In the Defense of Marriage Act case, Justice Kennedy was joined by the four members of the court's liberal wing—Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--while Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Justice Kennedy said the Defense of Marriage Act "violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government."
Associated Press
Casey Oakes, 26, of Monroe, N.J., left, Dan Choyce, 21, of Sicklerville, N.J., center left, Zach Wulderk, 19, of Hammonton, N.J., and his brother Dylan Wulderk, 22, right, wait for a ruling on same sex marriage at the Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday.
The court's four dissenters offered three different written dissents, by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Alito.
Chief Justice Roberts said the ruling still leaves the path open for states to "continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage." He said Congress might have had good reasons to enact the law, adding, "I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry."
The ruling on Proposition 8 was also 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts said Proposition 8's backers didn't have legal standing to challenge the law.
The case wasn't decided on the usual ideological lines, as Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Justice Kennedy dissented, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor.
Both opinions on Proposition 8 focused on the court's jurisdiction to hear the case. The state of California declined to defend the proposition in court, forcing its proponents to take up the legal fight.
"We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here," Chef Justice Roberts said.
Justice Kennedy's dissent didn't debate the merits of the state initiative, but he said he believed the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. He said proponents of a ballot initiative ought to be able to defend it in court when the state doesn't.
The rulings came amid quickly shifting public opinion on gay rights and gay marriage.
This past April, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 53% of respondents favored same-sex marriage with 42% opposed. Ten years earlier, only 32% were in favor and 51% were opposed.
When Proposition 8 passed in 2008 with 52% of the vote, only two other states permitted gay marriage. Today, 12 states plus the District of Columbia do so.
Moreover, many elected officials and public figures who had previously been noncommittal have thrown their support behind gay marriage. Former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, now says the measure is a mistake.
—Geoffrey A. Fowler, Tamara Audi, Laura Saunders, Evan Perez and Jared A. Favole contributed to this article.
AUSTIN, Tex. — A Fort Worth Democrat, Senator Wendy Davis, 50, stood in her running shoes on the green carpeted floor of the Senate chamber and spoke about a bill with some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country from 11:18 a.m. until about 10 p.m. She abided for most of that time by filibuster rules that prohibited her from leaning on her desk, sitting on her chair or straying off topic.
Her feat of stamina and conviction — designed by Democrats to block passage of a bill supported by some of the state's top Republicans — made her an instant celebrity across the country, a hero to some, a villain to others. Republicans monitored virtually her every move and word, waiting to catch her violating the rules, and at one point objecting when a fellow Democrat tried to help put a back-brace around Ms. Davis, who at that point had been standing for about seven hours straight.
Ms. Davis gained thousands of Twitter followers in a matter of hours. Close-up pictures of her pink sneakers zoomed across computer and television screens. Hundreds of men, women and children waited for hours in line at the Capitol to sit in an upstairs gallery and watch her in action, standing in lines that snaked around the rotunda and down staircases.
"I'm tired, but really happy," Ms. Davis told reporters in the Senate chamber at 3:20 a.m. Wednesday as she finally made her way out of the building. "I'm pleased to know that a spotlight is shining on Texas, a spotlight is shining on the failure of our current leadership." Hours after claiming that they successfully passed the bill, Republican lawmakers reversed course on Wednesday and said a disputed late-night vote on the bill did not follow legislative procedures, rendering the vote moot and giving Democrats a bitterly fought if probably short-lived victory.
The reversal capped a remarkable day in the Texas Legislature here. As Ms. Davis staged her filibuster marathon, abortion rights activists succeeded in disrupting Republican senators, and the fate of the bill, which Gov. Rick Perry had made a priority, devolved into a legislative mess so thick that even senators who had voted on the bill could not say for certain whether they had indeed voted on the bill.
The State Senate's vote came right at a midnight Tuesday deadline, amid widespread confusion and the noise of a chanting crowd of the bill's opponents in an upstairs gallery. Senate Democrats said the vote took place past the deadline at 12:02 a.m. or 12:03 a.m., while Republicans disputed those claims, saying the vote was legitimate.
But at 3 a.m., Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the presiding officer of the Senate and a Republican supporter of the bill, told lawmakers and reporters that although the bill passed on a 19-to-10 vote, the bill could not be signed in the presence of the Senate and was therefore dead, blaming "an unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics" as the primary cause.
"With all the ruckus and noise going on," Mr. Dewhurst said, he could not complete administrative duties to make the vote official and sign the bill. Senate Democrats and women's right's advocates said the real reason the vote could not be made official was a time stamp on official documents that showed the bill passed after midnight. The Legislature's official Web site first posted that the Senate's vote occurred on Wednesday, after the midnight deadline, but the date was later changed to Tuesday for unknown reasons.
The reversal served as an embarrassing episode for Mr. Dewhurst and Republican senators on a divisive bill that was closely watched around the nation by anti-abortion activists and supporters of abortion rights.
"The G.O.P. Senate leadership comes out of this whole process looking somewhat disingenuous, deceptive and disorganized," said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston.
The bill sought to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospital-style surgical centers and mandate that a doctor who performs abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Supporters of the bill, including Mr. Perry and other top Republicans, said the measures would protect women's health and hold clinics to safe standards, but women's right's advocates said the legislation amounted to an unconstitutional, politically motivated effort to shut legal abortion clinics. The bill's opponents said it will likely cause all but five of the 42 abortion clinics in the state to close, because the building renovations and equipment upgrades necessary to meet the surgical-center standards would be too costly.
Republicans, who control the State Senate and House, will likely have a second chance at the bill. The governor, who called the special session and put the bill on the agenda, may now call a second special session and once again tell lawmakers to consider the bill, known as Senate Bill 5. Political analysts said the bill would likely pass if a second special session was called.
The bill sought to make Texas the 12th state to bar most abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization and later — a step that has been blocked in three states so far as unconstitutional. The more pressing concern for clinic managers and advocates for women's rights was the requirement that all 42 abortion clinics in the state be licensed as ambulatory surgery centers.
Five clinics performing late-term abortions already meet that standard. But for most of the remaining 37, the new restriction would require costly renovations or relocation to meet architectural and equipment requirements. The five clinics are in large cities — Austin, San Antonio and Dallas each have one, and Houston has two. The burden on those five clinics to provide women's health services will be extreme, and women in rural areas and small towns far from those cities will be underserved, advocates for abortion rights said.
Two clinics in McAllen and Harlingen in South Texas — the only abortion providers in the area — would close if the bill had passed, they said, forcing women seeking abortions to travel a few miles across the border into Mexico rather than drive four hours to San Antonio, both for surgical procedures and abortion-inducing drugs.
"We know that it would shut down dozens of clinics in the state of Texas, a state of 26 million people, and there will be women who cannot reach a health care provider to get reproductive health care for hundreds of miles," said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and a daughter of Ann W. Richards, the former Texas governor. "This is the thing that's frightening. Women will do whatever they have to do to take care of themselves."
Ms. Davis, herself, has known long odds, and, for Democrats, was the perfect symbol in a fight over women's rights of what a woman can do. She was a teenager when her first daughter was born but managed to pull herself from a trailer park to Harvard Law School to a hard-fought seat in the Texas Senate, a rare liberal representing conservative Tarrant County.
"She's carrying every woman in the state of Texas, if you will, on her shoulders," Ms. Richards said. "If there's anybody who can do it, it's her. She's a marathoner. She's not a sprinter."
Ms. Davis is something of a filibuster star among Texas Democrats. At the end of the legislative term in 2011, she forced Mr. Perry to call a special session after her filibuster ran the clock out on a budget bill that included cuts in public education. But at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 hours after she first stood up, Mr. Dewhurst sustained a violation against her for straying off the topic. It was her third violation. As the senators debated the next steps, Ms. Davis remained standing, because it was uncertain whether the filibuster had officially ended.
Democrats accused Mr. Dewhurst of going back on his earlier statements that he would bring the end of the filibuster to a vote if Ms. Davis had three violations. As the clock neared midnight and the crowd erupted, several Democratic senators said they believed they were voting on a procedural matter when the vote for the abortion bill was taken. "I don't mind losing fair and square, but this has been a total sham and mockery of the rules," said State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, a San Antonio Democrat.
Amy Hagstrom Miller, the president of Whole Woman's Health, which operates abortion and women's health clinics in Texas and two other states, said the bill would force her to shut down the group's five clinics in Texas. The group also owns a sixth Texas facility in San Antonio that complies with ambulatory surgical requirements, but Ms. Hagstrom Miller said it had operated at an annual loss of $400,000 since opening two years ago."
Ms. Hagstrom Miller said opening clinics that met the new requirements would be financially untenable. "I believe in providing really compassionate, medically acceptable care, but why would I do it in Texas? I will surely look elsewhere," she said.
Another of the group's clinics is the one in McAllen, close to the Mexican border. It was quiet outside the McAllen clinic on Tuesday afternoon, but the area is heavily Catholic, and there is strong opposition to abortion. Signs protesting the clinic are posted on the building next door.
Already a large number of women cross the border to obtain abortion-inducing drugs in Mexico, Ms. Hagstrom Miller said, and she expects the number to rise if the clinic closes.
"We've already seen women taking matters into their own hands," she said, because of an existing state requirement of a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which forces women to go to the clinic twice. Many women seeking abortions, she said, are already mothers and do not have the time or money to travel long distances for the procedure.
"I've seen women who asked their partners to punch them in the stomach repeatedly," Ms. Hagstrom Miller said, adding that she believed the law and widespread closings of clinics would force more women to try "self-induced abortions."
Manny Fernandez reported from Austin, and Erik Eckholm from New York. Laura Tillman contributed reporting from McAllen, Tex.
Share prices on Bursa Malaysia opened higher today on a technical rebound after a streak of losses in the last five
successive days, dealers said.
At 9.00am, the FTSE Bursa Malaysia KLCI (FBM KLCI) was 1.04 points better at 1,729.69 but, 12 minutes later, it came off 1.88 points to 1,726.76.
A dealer said the benchmark FBM KLCI could recoup parts of its cumulative loss of 45.4-points or 2.6 per cent suffered over the past five days, as it makes its way towards the immediate support-turned-resistance line of 1,750 ahead.
He added that local and regional bourses might track an overnight rise on Wall Street as leading US bellwethers rose between 0.7 per cent and 0.9 per cent at the closing bell on hopes that the country's economic recovery remained on track.
On the scoreboard, the Finance Index rose 1.94 points to 16,322.650, the Industrial Index increased 2.34 points to 2,919.29 and the Plantation Index jumped 25.19 points to 8,256.62.
The FBM Emas Index added 5.51 points to 11,971.13, the FBMT100 Index was 2.319 points higher at 11,753.27, the FBM Mid 70 Index chalked up 65.04 points to 13,689.90 and the FBM Ace Index edged-up 15.48 points to 4,634.82.
Gainers led losers 194 to 41 while 112 counters were unchanged, 1,245 untraded and 48 others were suspended.
Volume stood at 74.28 million shares worth RM83.76 million.
Among actives, Asia Media and Cybertowers added half-a-sen each to 15.5 sen and 18 sen, respectively, and TA Enterprise earned 3.5 sen to 60.5 sen.
Luster Industries lost half-a-sen to 16 sen while Tiger Synergy was unchanged at 21.5 sen.
As for heavyweights, CIMB declined seven sen to RM7.98, Sime Darby and Axiata lost three sen each to RM9.40 and RM6.58, respectively, and Petronas Chemicals dropped two sen to RM6.52.
The ringgit open higher against the US dollar as appetite for riskier assets, including the local currency, emerged, dealers said.
At 9.02am, the currency was quoted 3.1770/1815 against 3.1820/1850 at 5pm yesterday.
A dealer said the greenback had started to recover after the latest batch of US economic data supported the Federal Reserve's recovery view and lifted US Treasury yields.
The local currency was, however, lower against the Singapore dollar at 2.5047/5093 from 2.5043/5095 on Tuesday but strengthened against the yen to 3.2382/2444 from 3.2767/2811 previously.
The ringgit appreciated against the British pound to 4.8983/9065 from 4.9111/9173 yesterday and rose against the euro to 4.1565/1636 from 4.1773/1819 on Tuesday.-- Bernama
NST Online Business Times : latest
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. 
