General Gay Marriage Issues Thread

[PKRudeBoy]

Huh, Reich-wing. Haven't heard that one before. Sounds appropriate.

[Kitsune]

Huh, Reich-wing. Haven't heard that one before. Sounds appropriate.

Years ago there was a saying "Rush is Reich"

[Borgholio]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/19/us/oregon ... -marriage/

A federal judge struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Monday.

"Because Oregon's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," U.S. District Judge Michael McShane said in his ruling.

Oregon voters passed Measure 36 in 2004, which amended the state's Constitution to define marriage as between one man and a woman.

In February, the state's attorney general said she would not defend the ban in court because it would not stand up to a federal constitutional challenge.

"My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families, families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure," McShane said. "With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community."
Photos: Same-sex marriage in U.S. Photos: Same-sex marriage in U.S.
Gov: Equality a fundamental American idea
Ten years of same-sex marriage

Same-sex couples camped out in lawn chairs outside a government building in Oregon's largest county while waiting for the news, then cheered as word of the judge's decision spread.

Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples minutes later, the county said in a statement.

Ben West, one of the plaintiffs who challenged Oregon's constitutional ban, stood beside his fiance and his son as he told CNN affiliate KGW that he was thrilled by the news.

"We're excited. It's surreal. We're part of history. Our family is recognized, I mean, I'm tingling. It's amazing," he said.

"It means that my son's family is just as legitimate as the one next door, and that he can grow up proud."

At a news conference shortly after the judge's ruling, activists and attorneys who challenged the amendment celebrated the news.

"Love won today," said Marty Rouse, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign.

Ten years ago, Rouse said, the first same-sex marriages in the United States were celebrated in Massachusetts. And 45 years ago marked another historic moment, he said.

"Same-sex couples were arrested and sent to jail for dancing together at establishments like the Stonewall Inn," he said. "Today, 45 years later, in 18 states and now including Oregon and the District of Columbia, same-sex couples are dancing together at their own weddings, and they have wedding rings, not handcuffs. History in Oregon. Congratulations."

Meanwhile, the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said it had filed a motion with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking judges to block McShane's ruling.

"This case is an ugly example of inappropriate cooperation between the Attorney General and the gay marriage lobby, both of whom want to redefine marriage in contravention of the overwhelming decision of the people to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brian Brown, the organization's president, said in a statement. "The people of Oregon are entitled to a defense of their decision on marriage rather than being abandoned in court."

Same-sex marriage now allowed in 18 states

The Oregon ruling continues a near-unbroken string of state and federal court victories nationwide in the past year for supporters of same-sex marriage.

Seventeen other states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage within their borders: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Just over a decade ago, there were none.

Earlier this month, judges in Arkansas and Idaho ruled that same-sex marriage bans in those states were unconstitutional. Both decisions are being appealed.

This month also marks the two-year anniversary of President Barack Obama voicing his public support for the first time of same-sex marriage, citing his own "evolution" on the issue.

"At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said at the time.

Groups supporting same-sex marriage applauded the Oregon ruling.

"The importance of Judge McShane's decision cannot be overemphasized," said David Fidanque, executive director of the ACLU of Oregon. "Our federal Constitution does not allow any state -- or its voters -- to deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law simply because of who they are and who they love. This type of discrimination is wrong, and it's also unconstitutional."

But court battles over the matter are far from over.

About 70 cases dealing with same-sex marriage are now making their way through U.S. courts.

Separate federal appeals courts in recent weeks heard challenges to same-sex marriage bans in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia. Similar appeals will be heard on current bans in Nevada, Texas, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan.

Federal judge orders Utah to recognize same-sex marriages

Also Monday, a federal judge said Utah must recognize the marriages of more than 1,200 same-sex couples who obtained marriage licenses earlier this year after a court struck down that state's same-sex marriage ban.

The U.S. Supreme Court days later issued a stay preventing any more same-sex marriages, but that action left those who got married in the interim in legal limbo.

The judge's ruling Monday says Utah must give those couples "all the protections, benefits, and responsibilities given to all marriages under Utah law."

While some details of the Oregon and Utah cases are similar, there's a key difference. In Utah, the state is appealing a judge's decision to overturn its voter-approved ban of same-sex marriage. Gov. Gary Herbert slammed what he said was a decision by an "activist federal judge."

In Oregon, officials are taking the opposite tack, praising the judge's ruling overturning their state's same-sex marriage ban.

"Now, finally, all Oregonians will have the opportunity to make a legal commitment to the person they love. Every person and every family in Oregon deserves that chance," Gov. John Kitzhaber said in a statement. "Today is a win for love, for families, and for freedom."

[Knife]

Woot equal rights.

As an aside, a Federal judge told Utah today that it cannot ignore the thousand or so couples who got married last December when same sex marriage was legal as well.

[LaCroix]

Congratulations to the Beaver State...

[mr friendly guy]

Let the whining from bigots begin. Music the ears. Another small step towards a better tomorrow.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Did someone mentioning whining from Bigots?

**MikeB-13 hours ago 0 0
@kris" You religious people can be prejudiced in your churches where gay kids commit suicide in high numbers. Apparently it doesn't bother you"
So if a great number of thieves committed suicide you would be for abolishing all theft law?
Just so individual action of taking their life goes down?
That is not very logical.

**Kris-11 hours ago 0 0
@mike
No... Because thieving is a crime.
Are you comparing gay people to thieves? Are you saying you want to outlaw gays?
Also apparently it does not bother you then that kids commit suicide for being gay?

**MikeB 8 hours ago 0 0
"No... Because thieving is a crime.
Are you comparing gay people to thieves?"
Yes, in that you say thieving is a crime and you are correct, for now, but all we have to do is pick one state, say Massachusetts, get the laws changed there and then move state to state forcing them to recognize Massachusetts thieving law. Isn't that how it works?

Why are you against thieving? Because you don't like it, Because you wouldn't do it, because it is icky to you. You bigot. Equality Now for the kleptomaniac!!! And please don't say the very silly thing people say, "It harms others" For who are you to say harm is wrong in the first place? You can't prove it. And some like to harm others. We have already established above that you are NOT built for a purpose, therefore you have no innate value. Stealing from you or stealing from a chicken then would amount to the same task since you and the chicken are random cosmic accidents, according to you.

See how that plays out. If you are logical and not hypocritical hopefully you see that. Even Albert Camu made fun of atheist because they always denied God and purpose but lived every day like they had a purpose to live.... what hypocrisy.

I recommend youtubing A reason to Live by Tim Keller.

Hooray for bigoted Commenters!!!

[Eternal_Freedom]

Excellent news.

Also, did that last commentator seriously say "who's to say harm is bad"? Words fail me, because I'm laughing so much.

[TheFeniX]

Yes, in that you say thieving is a crime and you are correct, for now, but all we have to do is pick one state, say Massachusetts, get the laws changed there and then move state to state forcing them to recognize Massachusetts thieving law. Isn't that how it works?

I've always found it hilarious when people say stupid shit like "It's bad because it's a crime. And it's a crime because it's bad" but would immediately turn around on something like laws against hosting prayer in school as dumb laws that need to be overturned. Calling out others for hypocrisy just makes it even better.

[FSTargetDrone]

Right on the heels of Oregon!

U.S. judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban in Pa.

Last updated: Tuesday, May 20, 2014, 5:51 PM
Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2014, 2:34 PM

HARRISBURG - A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriages, a landmark ruling that appeared to clear the way for the Commonwealth to become the latest state to legalize gay marriage.

The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III marked the first and most significant to date in a series of court challenges to the state's 1996 ban.

"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them onto the ash heap of history," Jones wrote in the 39-page opinion. "By virtue of this, ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth."

Lawyers for Gov. Corbett, whose administration had defended the law, said they were reviewing the decision. They have 30 days to appeal.

But advocates hailed the decision.

"What a great day!" said Mark Aronchick, one of the plantiffs lawyers in the case. "The court, in a bell-ringing opinion, has explained in crystal clear language why the promises of our Constitution extend to all Pennsylvanians. We urge the commonwealth to take whatever steps are necessary to allow marriages to proceed and the celebrations to begin immediately."

In Philadelphia, Register of Wills Ron Donatucci's office immediately began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Guy Sabelli, the city's marriage license supervisor, said 12 female couples and 6 male couples had obtained licenses by the time the office closed at 5:30 p.m. The office reopens at 8 a.m. Wednesday with extended hours until 7 p.m.

The lawsuit, Whitewood v. Wolf, was brought by 23 plaintiffs who said Pennsylvania's law violates the constitution by excluding same-sex couples from the same legal benefits and protections as heterosexual couples.

A trial was initially expected this summer. But lawyers on both sides of the case had told Jones the evidence and testimony wouldn't expand beyond what they had already presented in arguments and filings, and urged the judge rule based on them.

"The issue we resolve today is a divisive one," Jones wrote. "Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection."

In the 10 months since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal defense of marriage act and the Pennsylvania law suit was filed, marriage bans have fallen in states across the nation.

Courts at the state and federal levels in 12 states have found in favor of same-sex marriage. Some courts overturned same-sex marriage bans, while others allowed recognition of marriages conducted in other states.

The case before Jones, a 58-year-old Republican appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush, was one of seven same-sex marriage cases under consideration by courts in Pennsylvania.

The state Supreme Court is considering an appeal by Montgomery County Register of Wills L. Bruce Hanes to a Commonwealth Court decision barring him from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Should Jones' ruling stand up to appeal, it would render moot at least one other lawsuit, heard in a Philadelphia courtroom last week, seeking to strike down the portion of Pennsylvania's law barring recognition of out-of-state, same-sex unions.

U.S. District Judge Mary McLaughlin has yet to rule on the case of Isabelle Barker and Cara Palladino, a lesbian couple wed in Massachusetts in 2005, who sued for recognition of their marriage license in Pennsylvania.

But the couple said Tuesday it hardly mattered to them whether it was their suit or another that accomplished their goals. They celebrated with a champagne toast in their offices at Bryn Mawr College, where both women work.

"There are a lot of people who worked on this issue to make this day come," Palladino said. "It's a great day for all Pennsylvanians. It's a great day for justice and equality in Pennsylvania, now that we've cracked the liberty bell."

In a March Quinnipiac University poll of Pennsylvania voters, 57 percent of respondents said they supported a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 37 percent opposed it. The poll results trended along party lines: 74 percent of Democrats supported same-sex marriage, while 59 percent of Republicans opposed it.

In the Whitewood case, lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act, along with its refusal to marry same-sex couples or recognize such marriages from other states, violated a fundamental right to marry as well as the Constitution's equal-protection clause.

The state's law not only bans same-sex marriage, it specifies that the state cannot honor such marriages from other states.

The suit contended the state had no legitimate interest in banning same-sex marriage, and that the ban disparaged and injured lesbian and gay couples and their families by denying them a long list of legal and financial protections afforded to heterosexual couples.

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, which had supported the law, said Jones' decision "speaks to the confusion and misunderstanding among many today about the fundamental building block of society: the family. Every child has a basic right to a mother and a father united in marriage as a family. Today's decision does not change that."

Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, whose office had declined to defend the law, hailed the groundbreaking ruling.

"This is an historic day," she said in a statement. "More importantly, today brings justice to Pennsylvanians who have suffered from unequal protection under the law because of their sexual orientation. When state-sponsored inequality exists, citizens are deprived of the full protections that the Constitution guarantees. Our Commonwealth progressed today and so have the hopes and dreams of many who suffer from inequality."

[Crossroads Inc.]

Can we get a general Thread merger for "gay marriage" threads? Or maybe a sticky?

[Edi]

There was already an existing general thread for gay marriage issues. It has now been stickied and several existing older threads have been merged into it.

[Lagmonster]

As an interest point, the judge who smashed the gay marriage ban in Pennsylvania is the same guy who presided over the final defeat of the Intelligent Design movement at Kitzmiller v. Dover.

He is probably NOT on any conservatives' Christmas card list. I wonder if this means he has enough XP to level up to "Level 2 Activist Judge"?

[FSTargetDrone]

Sorry, I did not see the stickied general thread earlier!

Anyway, our fine Roman Catholic Republican Governor of Pennsylvania who opposes gay marriage has stated he will not seek to appeal the decision.
Link.

[Pelranius]

As an interest point, the judge who smashed the gay marriage ban in Pennsylvania is the same guy who presided over the final defeat of the Intelligent Design movement at Kitzmiller v. Dover.

He is probably NOT on any conservatives' Christmas card list. I wonder if this means he has enough XP to level up to "Level 2 Activist Judge"?

The right wing, ever since the days of Earl Warren have been having hissy fits when they find out that judges aren't sockpuppets for their personal stalking horses. Fortunately most people are sane enough to realize that refusing to serve as a mouthpiece for the JBS, KKK, and FRC is not an impeachable offense.

[Edi]

Sorry, I did not see the stickied general thread earlier!

It wasn't stickied earlier, I had to dig it up out of the depths of the forum. It had fallen quite a ways down because people just kept posting a new thread for every separate news story. So not really your fault.

[Channel72]

Excellent news.

Also, did that last commentator seriously say "who's to say harm is bad"? Words fail me, because I'm laughing so much.

Meh. That sort of thinking is totally common among Christian conservatives. They believe that morality is meaningless without God. When he says "who's to say harm is bad?" he's mocking the humanist idea that morality is relative.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Meanwhile in Maine...

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Maine's ethics panel fined a national anti-gay marriage group more than $50,000 on Wednesday and ordered it to reveal the donors who backed its efforts to repeal the state's gay marriage law.

The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices found that the National Organization for Marriage violated campaign finance laws by failing to properly register as a ballot question committee and file financial reports in the 2009 referendum that struck down gay marriage. Same-sex unions were legalized by voters in 2012.

The commission also ruled that the organization must file a campaign finance report, which would force it to disclose the names of its donors. The National Organization for Marriage has fought for years to keep its donor list secret, saying doing so would put its contributors at risk for harassment and intimidation.

A lawyer for the organization vowed to appeal the ethic commission's decision in state court, and members of the panel said they expect litigation to continue for at least a year.

Under Maine law, groups must register if they raise or spend more than $5,000 to influence a statewide ballot question.

The National Organization for Marriage gave nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine for the 2009 referendum, or more than 60 percent of the political action committee's expenditures, ethics investigators said in a report released earlier this month.

Investigators found that the national group "intentionally set up its fundraising strategy to avoid disclosure laws" by not allowing donors to mark that the funds were to be used to defeat same-sex marriage in Maine. Investigators say emails soliciting donations and the group's finances clearly show that more than $5,000 was raised with the purpose of assisting the Maine campaign.

Walt McKee, chairman of the ethics panel, said not fining the group would amount to "accepting a mockery" of Maine's disclosure laws. It's thought to be the largest campaign finance penalty in the state's history.

The organization argues that by not raising money specifically earmarked to influence the Maine gay marriage question, it was explicitly working to stay within the bounds of the state's law. It says that disclosing names will chill future donations.

"We didn't create a scheme, we tried to follow the law," Brian Brown, president of the Washington, D.C.-based organization, told the four-member panel on Wednesday.

Brown, who served as executive director of the National Organization for Marriage in 2009, was one of three members of the committee that led the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC.

Commissioners said his dual role and the fact that the national group controlled a majority of the PAC's funds was problematic for its argument that the funds weren't raised to influence the Maine campaign.

The group says that it's being targeted because of its stance on gay marriage and that groups on the other side of the issue — such as the Human Rights Campaign — followed the same guidelines.

State investigators said that its examination of the National Organization for Marriage actions was brought by a specific complaint and that the organization could have sought a similar investigation into the Human Rights Campaign.

John Eastman, a National Organization for Marriage lawyer, said that it intends to file a complaint against HRC in addition to filing an appeal.

Fred Karger, who leads the gay-rights group Rights Equal Rights and filed the complaint in 2009, praised the panel's decision and said he's confident that Maine would continue to fight the group in court.

Just remember... The Right Wing is TOTALLY about supporting States Rights and NOT about following it's own agenda!

[Borgholio]

It says that disclosing names will chill future donations.

It is now revealed that homophobes are afraid to be called out in public for the bigots that they are. Not really all that surprised...

[Crossroads Inc.]

To play devils advocate, their reason does make a sort of logic.
On of the arguments I often hear them make to defend secret doners goes as follows.

"Would you have forced people secretly donating to Martin Luther king disclosure themselves?
Wouldn't you worry about the KKK coming after them?"

The problem with this of course is as far as I know there were no secret donor lists during the civil rights era, and comparing pro gay groups to the KKK is just a tad bit disingenuous

[Borgholio]

Well yeah I agree if you fear retribution then that's a valid reason for remaining anonymous. But unlike pro-black supporters in the Civil Rights era, I have not heard of anti-gay activists being beaten or harassed...at least not to the extent of gays themselves.

[Lagmonster]

Frankly, I don't support hidden *anything* where it comes to politics. I have no problem hoisting risk onto people and companies. If you plan to vote for someone, you do it by standing up in front of everyone in your community and saying 'aye'. If you plan to financially support a political organization, you get up front of the cameras and hand them a check.

[Borgholio]

Wisconsin's gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional.

http://www.wpr.org/federal-judge-overtu ... x-marriage

Federal Judge Overturns State Ban On Same-Sex Marriage
Amendment To State's Constitution Had Barred Gay Marriage
Updated:
Friday, June 6, 2014, 4:20pm
By Erik Lorenzsonn

A federal judge overturned Wisconsin’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on Friday afternoon.

In her decision in a case brought against the ban by the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb cited a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions -- including U.S. v. Windsor, in which the court ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

Crabb wrote:

Because my review of (the 14th Amendment) convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

The decision is the latest in a recent slew of rulings across the country overturning state bans on gay marriage.

It’s unclear whether or not same-sex couples are, immediately as of the ruling, able to get marriage licenses at county clerks offices in Wisconsin. Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele is keeping that county's courthouse open until 9 p.m. on Friday night to allow couples to marry. He said he will personally pay for any overtime costs associated with keeping the courthouse open.

[Crossroads Inc.]

From Associated Press

For foes of same-sex marriage, their losing streak keeps growing. Some sense a lost cause, others vow to fight on.

Related Stories

Republican senator: Same-sex marriage will soon be 'law of the land' The Week (RSS)
Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down By Federal Judge Huffington Post
Lawsuit challenges North Dakota gay marriage ban Associated Press
Same-sex marriage stands in Oregon after Supreme Court denies stay of ruling Christian Science Monitor
Wisconsin's gay marriage ban struck down The Week (RSS)
On Election Day in 2012, they went 0-for-4 on state ballot measures. A year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages. And over the past seven months, more than a dozen federal and state judges have struck down part or all of state-level bans on gay marriage, with no rulings going the other way.

Faced with these developments, some longtime opponents of gay marriage now say that its nationwide legalization via a Supreme Court ruling is inevitable. Others refuse to concede, and some leaders of that cohort will be rallying Thursday at a March for Marriage in Washington that they hope will draw many thousands.

The event's main sponsor is the National Organization for Marriage, which engaged in several successful state campaigns against gay marriage prior to the 2012 votes in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington state that reversed the tide.

NOM is promoting the march with a website that evokes a "road to victory" and a video featuring dramatic background music.

"A competition is won by those who take the field, not by those who sit on the sidelines," NOM's president, Brian Brown, exhorts his supporters. "Friends, we need to take the field for marriage — and fight to win."

View galleryFILE - In this March 3, 2014 file photo, Christine …
FILE - In this March 3, 2014 file photo, Christine Weick protests outside Federal Courthouse before …
Brown, in a telephone interview, said his best-case scenario hinged on a future ruling by the Supreme Court upholding the right of states to set their own marriage laws, rather than imposing same-sex marriage nationwide. Such a ruling would strengthen the position of the 31 states that currently ban gay marriage and might encourage grass-roots efforts in some of the other states to reimpose bans, Brown said.

"We'd put this back in the hands of the democratic process," Brown said. "We would have the people deciding for themselves."

If the Supreme Court ruled the other way, legalizing gay marriage nationwide, "We won't go away," Brown said.

He envisioned a resistance campaign comparable to that waged by the anti-abortion movement since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a nationwide right to abortion.

"In the next year or so, we'll either have a massive victory at the Supreme Court, or we'll need to fight for 10, 20 years to undo the damage that the court has done," Brown said.

View galleryFILE - In this Jan 28, 2014 file photo, people protest …
FILE - In this Jan 28, 2014 file photo, people protest during a rally for the opponents for gay marr …
Among the scheduled speakers at the march is Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that has fought in court on behalf of laws banning gay marriage.

Nimocks argues that America would be better off if the Supreme Court allowed the current split among the states to continue, along with the public debate over the repercussions of gay marriage.

"America has not fallen apart because some states have same-sex marriage and others do not," he said. "We've been managing that for 10 years."

While Nimocks and Brown are optimistic that the Supreme Court won't impose same-sex marriage, other veterans of the fight against it think differently.

"Let's face it: Anybody who does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn't been observing what's going on," Sen. Orrin Hatch, a seven-term conservative Republican from Utah, told a radio interviewer last month.

View galleryFILE - In this July 14, 2010 file photo, a National …
FILE - In this July 14, 2010 file photo, a National Organization for Marriage recreational vehicle g …
Maggie Gallagher, a former president of the National Organization for Marriage, also expects that outcome. In a recent blog post, she said gay-marriage opponents needed to regroup and recognize that they have become "a subculture facing a dominant culture."

"The way you keep a movement going is to define achievable victories," she said in an interview. "The marriage movement is in the process of trying to figure out what that is."

A leading advocate of same-sex marriage, Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, said his adversaries have been placed in an ever-weakening position by trends in public opinion polls and by the recent court rulings. One after another, the judges have said they heard no convincing argument why gay couples should be denied the marriage rights afforded to opposite-sex couples.

"All the defenses of discrimination conjured up by the dwindling hard-core of opponents have been exposed as indefensible, insufficient, or untrue," said Wolfson.

In the political realm, Democrats increasingly see advocacy of gay marriage as a winning position, while the Republican Party — whose 2012 national platform opposes gay marriage — is now experiencing some divisions.

View galleryFILE - In this May 8, 2012, file photo National Organization …
FILE - In this May 8, 2012, file photo National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown stan …
In several states, some GOP leaders have objected to planks in the state party platform that oppose same-sex marriage. Also, several of the GOP governors whose states are among those allowing gay marriage have accepted the new reality rather than continue railing against it.

In Congress, conservative Republicans have introduced two bills opposing same-sex marriage, but neither has drawn strong support even within GOP ranks. One would require the federal government to defer to state marriage laws, including those banning gay marriage; the other would amend the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

Amid the string of defeats in court, many opponents of gay marriage have focused their wrath on the judges making those decisions.

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, depicted the rulings as "judicial tyranny." Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — who'll be a featured speaker at Thursday's march — called for the impeachment of the judge who struck down his state's gay-marriage ban.

"When members of the judiciary act as if they were entitled to the power of all three branches of government, it creates a disturbing abuse of power," Huckabee said in an email to The Associated Press.

View galleryFILE - In this Jan. 28, 2014 file photo, Brian Brown, …
FILE - In this Jan. 28, 2014 file photo, Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Mar …
Some conservative groups have launched fundraising appeals decrying recent cases where prominent people lost jobs or business opportunities because of their opposition to same-sex marriage. The Family Research Council, for example, depicted as "thuggery" the pressure that led to the resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who had supported a 2008 campaign against gay marriage in California.

"Our ability to express ourselves in the public sphere must never be repressed by the tyranny of political correctness," wrote the council's president, Tony Perkins, in a letter to supporters. "We must never submit to the radical leftist redefinition of human sexuality."

Perkins' group is a co-sponsor of Thursday's march, as is the Coalition of African-American Pastors. The coalition's leader, the Rev. Bill Owens, says he will intensify his advocacy work in black churches, seeking to make the case that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Another co-sponsor is the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which is organizing a bus fleet to carry parishioners to the march.

One of the scheduled speakers is the Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, who chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' subcommittee on the promotion and defense of marriage.

A coalition of liberal politicians and gay-rights leaders in California has issued an open letter to Cordileone, urging him to skip the march. Many of the other scheduled speakers "have repeatedly denigrated lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said the letter, suggesting the archbishop shouldn't align with such viewpoints.

Along with the Catholic Church, several other major denominations remain adamant in opposing same-sex marriage.

"We stand strong on what the Scripture says about marriage between a man and a woman," said the Rev. Ronnie Floyd after his recent election as new president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

A top Mormon leader reiterated opposition to gay marriage during the biannual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April.

"While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not," said Neil Andersen.

Bum Bum Bum…
Another One Bites The Dust!!!

[Broomstick]

A top Mormon leader reiterated opposition to gay marriage during the biannual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April.

"While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not," said Neil Andersen.

That's really ironic coming from a Mormon.