What’s driving this insiders’ insurrection? Perhaps a sense that a libertarian-leaning belief in fully extending the freedom to marry to all Americans does not, in fact, clash with a conservative commitment to holding together the social fabric, as marriage entails personal responsibility and social stability. Or perhaps these GOP leaders are beginning to see an alignment of their rhetoric about individual liberty with public opinion; in the last month, two national polls, by CNN and the Associated Press, showed that a majority of Americans nationwide now support marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

The implications of such a historic shift in the GOP establishment’s stance on marriage should not be underestimated. For Republicans, it means they could become less moored to their socially conservative base and may get back in touch with the cautious but forward-looking American political center that is vital to GOP hopes of cobbling together a governing majority. For the country, it is evidence that we are inching ever closer to a national consensus that gay and lesbian couples should have the freedom to marry under the law.

Click here to read the whole thing.

At the Republican National Committee’s Summer Meeting, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring told the New York Times, “This election needs to revolve around five issues: taxes, spending, the economy, jobs and debt.” The Indiana Republican Party Chairman went further, arguing that focusing on social issues might play in Democrats’ favor. “Can we declare a truce on some of the other issues unrelated to the economy?” he said.

Stereotypical roles seemed to be reversed as President Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, reiterated White House opposition to marriage equality. This drew a quick response from Andrew Sullivan, a gay blogger on The Atlantic’s website, who said that “The whole point of this ruling is to contradict [Axelrod's] statement. If the president does not support my right to marry, then he does not support my equality, according to the ruling.”

The decision to stay away from marriage as a ‘wedge’ issue is one echoed by the national GOP, as RNC Political Director Gentry Collins remarked in an interview with Politico that “Every indicator that I have … generally speaking is that economic growth and job creation are the tandem issues that will be the principal drivers of voter decision at polls. What I’m encouraging candidates to do is go out and run on an economic platform, a jobs platform.”

Larry Sabato, also in Politico, put it simply: “A modern party does not want a campaign that’s built around a crusade on gay rights. … it won’t work, for one thing, and for another, it’s so controversial that it would obscure the nonpartisan appeal of the economic issue.” He added, “I don’t think that moderates and independents get very excited about this.”

Dan Balz, in the Washington Post notes that:

At another time, the ruling overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriages might have been the political equivalent of an earthquake. Instead, the relatively restrained response underscores both the singular economic focus of this year’s elections and the shifting politics of one of the country’s major social issues.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans appear eager to try to turn the California decision into a November rallying cry. Many Democrats who otherwise strongly support gay rights are still reluctant to advocate for same-sex marriages, President Obama being the most prominent example. Many Republicans believe their conservative base is already well motivated. For now, they prefer to stay away from the kind of wedge-issue politics that were once a hallmark of their campaigns.

Political parties and elected leader’s attitudes towards same-sex marriage can be directly seen as a reflection of a populace that is much more accepting. In a May 25, 2010 Gallup poll, 52 percent of Americans voiced their support for same-sex relationships, with only 43 percent registering opposition. This is remarkably different than 2004, when 54 percent opposed that right.

His bill is expected to encounter opposition from religious leaders, conservative president Sebastian Pinera, and other members of Congress, according to Reuters Canada. Yet just last month, Argentina, a border country of Chile, became the first country in Catholic Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage.

According to Reuters Canada, Rossi told reporters, “This is a project that I will present … and I am also calling on the Church to be more welcoming, and I say that as part of the Church.”

Under current law, same-sex couples may receive a civil partnership, which is recognized but not given the same status as marriage is for heterosexual couples. Hughes predicts that before the next general election, the law will be changed to give an equal right to full marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

“It would be appropriate in Britain in 2010 to have civil marriage for straight people and gay people equally,” he told British news source  The Telegraph. “The state ought to give equality. We’re halfway there. I think we ought to be able to get there in this Parliament.”

This Bill extends marriage-like benefits to gay and lesbian couples for property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax.

After the signing of the Bill, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern described it as “one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation to be enacted since independence.”

The widely supported Bill was approved by 48 votes to 4 on Friday July 9th.

 There has been a vast religious opposition towards the legislation in Argentina from the Roman Catholic Church, organizing many protests against the bill. President Kirchner responded by criticizing the church for its lack to adjustment of modern reality. Supporters cite polls showing that the overwhelming majority of citizens, around 70 percent support marriage equality. The bill is expected to be passed.

 The first case was brought by the state of Massachusetts. Judge Tauro declared Congress violated the Tenth Amendment by originally passing DOMA. They took away the states decisions determining which couples can be considered married.

His second ruling was on Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. It was decided that DOMA violated equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This case was argued by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), GLAD represented eight married couples and three widowers in the suit.

 Two other major equality court cases continue to develop in California, the Prop. 8 trial and Log Cabin Republicans trial against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The decision in Boston today is a great step toward equality for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.

 Governor Lingle has openly spoke against same-sex marriage and stated, “House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name.”

 The bill would have granted gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

 For weeks she heard testament from both sides of the issue and Tuesday made her decision in the packed Honolulu Capitol with cheers from one side and tears and “”We’ll keep fighting!” “Let’s go!” “We Shall Overcome!” from the other side.

Five states — California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington — grant same-sex couples rights without allowing marriage itself. Maryland, Rhode Island and New York legally recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage.

“Supporters of same-sex marriage are understandably giddy with excitement over the impending decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. There’s pretty much universal agreement that the liberal-conservative tag team of David Boies and Ted Olson made an excellent and compelling argument for why the voter-approved Proposition 8 in California violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. But the prospect of victory has me and more than a few others concerned about what may follow.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not the only marriage equality case out there. Folks have their eyes on one out of Massachusetts. But no matter how Judge Walker rules in the Prop 8 suit, which is expected sometime this summer, the case is certain to be appealed to the federal Ninth Circuit and then to the Supreme Court. And therein lies the danger. If the current ideological makeup of the court doesn’t change by then, the victory that could come at the hands of Judge Walker could turn into a defeat in the Roberts Court. And even if the justices put ideology aside, it might still be reluctant to impose its will on the country.

Jonathan Rauch wrote an excellent piece for the New York Times last Saturday that also expressed concern about same-sex marriage and the high court. The foundation of his argument was something Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said cast a spotlight on that latter point. “The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals,” she said. “But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.”

To understand the importance of that last sentence we need to go back to the 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. This case involved two consenting adult gay men who were arrested for violating Georgia’s anti-sodomy law. Michael Hardwick challenged the law’s constitutionality in federal court. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the question before it was whether consensual sodomy by homosexuals was a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. The answer was no in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Byron R. White. This is a key paragraph in the majority opinion to file away for a moment.

Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law, and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” is, at best, facetious.

The constitutionality of sodomy laws returned 17 years later in Lawrence v. Texas. The question before the Supreme Court in 2003 was “the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.” The 6-3 decision, which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and invalidated anti-sodomy laws across the country, was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. His majority opinion remains heralded as the most pro-gay decision to come from the high court. In a key rebuttal to Bowers, Kennedy wrote:

In our own constitutional system the deficiencies in Bowers became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the relevant conduct referenced in the Bowers decision are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States where sodomy is still proscribed, whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct, there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. The State of Texas admitted in 1994 that as of that date it had not prosecuted anyone under those circumstances. State v. Morales, 869 S. W. 2d 941, 943.

The historical trend between the two cases is obvious. In addition to recognizing the violation of equal protection and due process guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court in the Lawrence case also noted that society was moving away from criminalizing the consensual intimate relationships of same-sex couples. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of society’s acceptance of marriage equality.

Yes, there has been progress, much of it within the last 10 years. Same-sex couples are able to legally wed in five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and, most recently, the District of Columbia. Maryland, Rhode Island and New York legally recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. But in that same period, 30 states passed constitutional amendments or statutes that define marriage as being between one man and one woman. In fact, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously on June 30 to uphold that state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions. Remember what Kagan said about the court recognizing the limits on itself and respecting “the choices made by the American people”? Given the current landscape, it would be astounding if the court overturned the will of the people as expressed through state constitutions, acts of the legislature and at the ballot box.

Here’s something else to consider. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that ushered in marriage equality there in 2004 also kicked off a push to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution through an amendment banning same-sex marriage. It went nowhere then. I’m not so sure today. Two-thirds of the states — 38 — are needed to amend the U.S. Constitution. As I just mentioned 30 states have already done it on their own. Or look at it this way, 45 of the 50 states currently do not permit same-sex marriage.

Legally speaking, the kindling is there for a controlled blaze confined to California or an inferno that could stop the national march toward marriage equality in its tracks possibly for decades either through a constitutional amendment (extremely difficult, but not impossible) or, as Rauch put it, through an “aggressively dismissive ruling” from the Supreme Court. All that’s needed is a spark. Right now, Judge Walker is the man holding the matches.” -Jonathan Capehart

 Benefits will now be offered to same-sex domestic partners of eligible federal workers, U.S. Postal workers and federal retirees. The Office of Personal Management will not extend access to opposite-sex domestic partners, because they can obtain the insurance through marriage, “an option not currently available to same-sex domestic partners,” the agency wrote in Tuesday’s Federal Register.

 All same-sex couples must still apply but will not be asked to submit formal documentation of their domestic partnership. Same-sex partners will be asked the same set of health questions as married couples and no one is automatically guaranteed coverage.