Facebook Donates to Reyes's Campaign

Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court recently in a bid to preserve the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Reyes bluntly spelled out the stakes.

"It comes down to this,” the petition states. “Thousands of couples are being unconstitutionally denied the right to marry or millions of voters are being disenfranchised of their vote to define marriage. Either way, the court’s review is necessary, and this case is the right vehicle to do so.”

Calling it, without exaggeration, an “immensely important question,” Utah’s petition seeks review of a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that struck down the state’s marriage restrictions. “The issue has been percolating for 40 years,” the petition notes. “Dozens of cases are challenging state marriage laws, and erratic use of stays has created legal chaos.”

In its 2-1 decision in June, the 10th Circuit concluded Utah’s same-sex marriage ban violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection. An amendment to the state’s constitution adopted by 66 percent of voters in 2004 declares that “marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman” and that “no other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect”

In the 2012 primary election in Utah for Attorney General, Reyes challenged Swallow for the position. The Republican primary race was purported to be “one of the dirtiest in years”. Swallow defeated Reyes. Swallow went on to win the general election but then resigned in 2013. Reyes was appointed as Attorney General. He is facing his re-election this fall.

Sean Reyes has openly spoken out against same sex marriage. Not only does he disagree with the LGBT community’s right to equal marriage, he is actively against it. He has said he will “spend whatever it takes” to fight against same sex marriage. He has even gone so far as to hire attorney Monte Stewart, founder of anti-equal marriage legal group Marriage Law Foundation to attempt to overturn a Utah ban on Equal marriage.

In a controversial move, it has been revealed that Facebook has donated $10,000 to Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes’ re-election campaign. Facebook, who made the donation in May, has defended their support of this candidate in a letter to The Huffington Post:

“Facebook has a strong record on LGBT issues and that will not change, but we make decisions about which candidates to support based on the entire portfolio of issues important to our business, not just one...

The question has to be asked – Why Sean Reyes? His aggressive stance on gay marriage not only condemns us, but also actively fights against our right to equality. In answer, Facebook has declared that they do not necessarily support Reyes position on gay marriage, stating – “A contribution to a candidate does not mean that we agree with every policy or position that candidate takes. We made this donation for the same reason we’ve donated to Attorneys General on the opposite side of the issue –because they are committed to fostering innovation and an open Internet”.

Gay Marriage and Obama

Three federal judges have now ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution’s “equal protection” clause. President Barack Obama seems to disagree.

He has repeatedly stated that, while he personally supports same-sex marriage, the issue should be left to the states. In other words, the nation’s first black president holds a states-rights position on what has shaped up to be the civil-rights issue of this generation.

Most states ban same-sex marriage. And if they are left to work out the issue for themselves in the years and decades to come some will likely reverse their bans, but many won’t. The question will remain: Are same-sex marriages protected under the 14th Amendment?

It’s hard to imagine that Obama, a former constitutional law professor who has cited the 14th Amendment when discussing gay rights, believes that the equal-protection clause does not apply to gay and lesbian couples seeking a government-issued marriage license. More likely, he has taken a go-slow approach to avoid alienating constituencies—and inflaming the opposition.

His caution has been understandable perhaps even helpful in the short run. But it will become increasingly difficult for him to avoid taking a clear stand. Marriage equality is likely to come before the U.S. Supreme Court before the end of his term, possibly within the next year. At that time Obama will have to decide whether to support the plaintiffs.

He should, and he should not wait for the court to force his hand.

The presidential bully pulpit has been a powerful force in acceleration the evolution of freedom and equal rights in America, and the energy with which presidents have used their platform – or not—shapes their legacy.

In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower declined to speak out in favor of civil rights, saying, “I don’t know what another speech would do about it right now.” In response, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Negro Leaders Conference sent a telegram urging him to “use the weight of your great office to point out to the people the rights of all human beings.”

While a strong case can be made that history has so far under-appreciated Eisenhower’s record on civil rights, his unwillingness to make energetic use of his office is widely accepted as a failure.

President John F. Kennedy is still faulted for waiting two and a half years to fully embrace the cause of civil rights. When he finally did, in an Oval Office speech in June 1963, he cast the issue in terms of morality and American values. And while this may have angered opponents, it inspired more hope than hate. It became a turning point in the civil-rights movement and saved his presidency from history’s harsh judgment.

This Congress is hardly likely to pass a low prohibiting discrimination in the granting of marriage licenses. But that should not stop this president from addressing a controversial question. If Obama believes that the 14th Amendment protects same-sex marriage, he should explain why he has changed his own mind. It is an argument that Americans – who polls show favor legalizing same-sex marriage – are increasingly ready to accept. If he makes the case in a tone of respect toward opponents and if he tempers proponents’ optimism by acknowledging the lengthy nature of civil-rights movements, he can help soften the fallout from the eventual Supreme Court decision, whatever it may be.

For a president so stymied by an obstructive Congress, an Oval Office address on same-sex marriage could be a high point of his tenure. It would also be a fitting way for a barrier-breaking president to secure his place among leaders who have pushed to extend the full rights of the Constitution to all Americans.

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Historic DOMA and Proposition 8 Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments of the two prominent cases that could test the bounds of laws restricting gay marriage next month. No matter the outcome, two facts alone make these cases historic: never before has the Supreme Court heard such comprehensive, sweeping advocacy in favor of LGBT people, and never before has the federal government been the advocate.

The first case will be argued March 26, involving a dispute over California’s constitutional ban on gay marriage known as Proposition 8. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier struck down that rule. The second case is expected to be argued the following day. It is a challenge to part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Lower courts have declared both DOMA and Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

The Obama Administration’s argument is that the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” violates the U.S. Constitution in defining marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman—specifically Section 3 of DOMA, which bars recognition of same-sex marriages in the granting of federal benefits including Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, insurance benefits for government employees, and filing joint tax returns.

The law was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. The Obama Administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it would no longer defend the provision. Republicans in the House of Representatives directed by Speaker John Boehner, stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.

The Proposition 8 case could have the broadest implications. A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upholds California’s ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nations largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

President Obama’s position on gay marriage has “evolved” in its favor. In his inaugural address last month, he said, “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” His Administration will weigh in against Proposition 8 as it has with DOMA.

Homosexual conduct has a history of being prosecuted as criminal in the United States. Although same-sex marriages now are legally recognized in nine states and the District of Columbia, many more states still have laws aimed at gays and lesbians—including restrictions on the adoption of children, banning gay marriage, and refusing legal benefits to same-sex couples.

Polls show a clear shift in public acceptance of same-sex marriage, especially among under-30 Americans. 65-35% approve, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll in December. For all age groups, Gallup puts the number at 53-46 % approval.

We will be watching anxiously while these cases’ arguments are being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact alone that the Court will hear them at this time is momentous and we can hope that the shifting attitudes about same-sex marriage will be reflected in their opinions.