Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

BRITAIN: Gay & Straight Couples Launch Challenge To Marriage Laws

Led by activist Peter Tatchell, on Wednesday eight British couples, four gay and four straight, will file a challenge to Britain's marriage and civil partnership laws with the European Court of Human Rights.
Peter Tatchell is coordinator of the Equal Love campaign, which seeks to end sexual orientation discrimination in both civil marriage and civil partnership law."Since November, four same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses at register offices in Greenwich, Northampton and Petersfield. Four heterosexual couples were also turned away when they applied for civil partnerships in Islington, Camden, Bristol and Aldershot," added Tatchell.

"All eight couples received letters of refusal from their register offices, which we are now using as the evidential basis to challenge in the European Court of Human Rights the UK's exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage and the prohibition of straight civil partnerships. Since there is no substantive difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems.
The petitioners contend that Britain's "separate but equal" system violates the European Convention On Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

[MsTinkerbelly]

New Hampshire marriage repeal bill introduced
By Adam Bink

Just today, as reported in the Concord Monitor, repeal language was introduced, which can be found here (and copied below). It’s every bit as nasty as you expected it to be.

The legislation does recognize marriages performed in the state since the freedom to marry became a reality, but any out of state marriage performed after the time at which this law would be enacted is not recognized. E.g., New Hampshire gay and lesbian couples cannot travel to Massachusetts and wed.

Per the article, a response from NH Freedom to Marry:

The New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition criticized Bates for focusing on gay marriage instead of the economy. “Rep. Bates has planted himself firmly, and proudly, on the fringes of American life,” Mo Baxley, executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said in a statement. “His need to divorce committed couples and to prevent other couples from getting married is strange. So much for family values.”

Bill text:

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven

AN ACT relative to the definition of marriage.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Marriage; Marriages Prohibited; Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. RSA 457:1 – RSA 457:3 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:1 Purpose. The legislature finds and declares that:

I. Marriage is not a creature of statute but rather a social institution which predates organized government. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, marriage has roots that are “older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965).

II. As many scholars and experts have noted, marriage, understood as the legal union of a man and a woman, serves and supports important social goods in which the government of New Hampshire has a compelling interest.

III. The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women – sometimes unintentionally. Because of this biological reality, New Hampshire has a unique, distinct, and compelling interest in promoting stable and committed marital unions between opposite-sex couples so as to increase the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both of their natural parents. No other domestic relationship presents the same level of state interest.

IV. A child has a natural human right to the love, care and support of his or her own mother and father, whenever possible. Marriage is the primary social institution that promotes that ideal and encourages its achievement.

457:2 Marriages Prohibited; Men; Women.

I. No man shall marry his mother, father’s sister, mother’s sister, daughter, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s brother’s daughter, mother’s brother’s daughter, father’s sister’s daughter, mother’s sister’s daughter, or any other man.

II. No woman shall marry her father, father’s brother, mother’s brother, son, brother, son’s son, daughter’s son, brother’s son, sister’s son, father’s brother’s son, mother’s brother’s son, father’s sister’s son, mother’s sister’s son, or any other woman.

457:3 Recognition of Out-of-State Marriages. Every marriage legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire, which would not be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire, shall be recognized as valid in this state for all purposes if or once the contracting parties are or become permanent residents of this state subsequent to such marriage, and the issue of any such marriage shall be legitimate. Marriages legally contracted outside the state of New Hampshire which would be prohibited under RSA 457:2 if contracted in New Hampshire shall not be legally recognized in this state. Any marriage of New Hampshire residents recognized as valid in the state prior to the effective date of this section shall continue to be recognized as valid on or after the effective date of this section.

2 Marriageable. Amend RSA 457:4 to read as follows:

457:4 Marriageable. No male below the age of 14 years and no female below the age of 13 years shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage [that is entered into by one male and one female], and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void. [No male below the age of 18 and no female below the age of 18 shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage between persons of the same gender, and all marriages contracted by such persons shall be null and void.]

3 Marriage; Solemnization of Marriage. RSA 457:31 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:31 Who May Solemnize. Marriage may be solemnized by a justice of the peace as commissioned in the state; by any minister of the gospel in the state who has been ordained according to the usage of his or her denomination, resides in the state, and is in regular standing with the denomination; by any member of the clergy who is not ordained but is engaged in the service of the religious body to which he or she belongs, resides in the state, after being licensed therefor by the secretary of state; within his or her parish, by any minister residing out of the state, but having a pastoral charge wholly or partly in this state; by judges of the United States appointed pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution; by bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to Article I of the United States Constitution; or by United States magistrate judges appointed pursuant to federal law.

4 Solemnization of Marriage; Exceptions. RSA 457:37 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

457:37 Exceptions. Nothing contained in this chapter shall affect the right of Jewish Rabbis residing in this state, or of the people called Friends or Quakers, to solemnize marriages in the way usually practiced among them, and all marriages so solemnized shall be valid. Jewish Rabbis residing out of the state may obtain a special license as provided by RSA 457:32.

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 100-A:2-b, relative to marriage.

II. RSA 457:31-b, relative to solemnization of marriage; applicability.

III. RSA 457:45, relative to civil union recognition.

IV. RSA 457:46, relative to obtaining legal status of marriage.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.

[iamkeri1]

Dub's daughter Barbara speaks out for marriage equity.

Here's the link - everything I found on youtube referred to another link. this one is from yahoo.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/8725203/24038708

[Soon]

[MsTinkerbelly]

Bad news, and hope, in Iowa
“Is this heaven?

No, it’s Iowa.”

-Field of Dreams


By Adam Bink

It was another drinking from the firehose kind of day at Courage Inc., so I didn’t have a chance to write about this, but the Iowa House passed legislation to place a constitutional amendment stripping same-sex couples of the freedom to marry. The measure still is a long way from going anywhere, as it must be approved by the Senate and then approved in another legislative session after elections, but it is a defeat. The vote was 62-37 with one abstention.

A NOTE FROM ME (TINK)
The Video posted above from Soon was also posted with this story....didn't think we needed it twice!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Top Maryland Republican announces support for the freedom to marry
By Adam Bink

Remarkable news today from Maryland. Earlier this year, Republican Senate Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman resigned from his post under pressure because of his pledge to introduce a civil unions bill.

Well, today Kittleman announced his is abandoning that plan and will support legislation to extend the freedom to marry to same-sex couples. Big, big news. This is the (former) leader of the opposition crossing party lines to support equality. His full statement, via the Washington Blade, is below.

STATEMENT BY SENATOR ALLAN H. KITTLEMAN ON SENATE BILL 116

I want to express my thoughts on SB 116, Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. As most of you know, I have long supported equal rights for same sex couples. A few years ago, I voted in favor of allowing same sex couples the right to make medical decisions for each other.

This year, I decided to work on legislation that allowed civil unions for all couples – opposite sex and same sex couples. My goal was three-fold:

1. I wanted to ensure that same sex couples had the same rights and
responsibilities as married couples in Maryland;

2. I wanted to remove the government’s intervention in what most Marylanders
consider a religious institution (marriage); and

3. I wanted to develop a consensus on an issue that has been very divisive for many years.

In early January, I announced my proposal for civil unions for all couples. Somewhat surprisingly, I received much more criticism from people who wanted same sex marriage than those who oppose such marriages. I actually received quite a lot of messages and emails from Republicans supporting my decision.

A recent poll performed by Gonzales Research confirmed strong support for civil unions. The poll found that 62% of Maryland voters support civil unions. Of that amount, 73% of Democrats, 60% of Independents and 41.5% of Republicans support civil unions. This figure was higher than the support for same-sex marriage in Maryland.

According to the poll, 51% of Maryland voters support same-sex marriage. Of that amount, 65% of Democrats, 52.4% of Independents and 24% of Republicans support same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, despite the support by a strong majority of Maryland voters, I did not receive any support from my Republican and Democrat senate colleagues. In fact, the Republican senate caucus yesterday voted to take a “caucus position” against same-sex marriage. My Republican colleagues have also made it very clear to me that they would not be supportive of my civil union legislation. I also did not receive any support from Republicans or Democrats in the House of Delegates.

Based upon the lack of support I have received for my civil union bill, it was evident that my legislation would not receive a favorable report from the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. With the deadline for submitting legislation approaching quickly and with the Committee hearing scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 8th, I made the decision to forego my efforts to have civil unions for all couples in Maryland.

As I noted above, my primary goal has always been to ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples currently have in Maryland. I see this issue as a civil rights issue. I was raised by a gentleman who joined with others in fighting racial discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s. Watching him fight for civil rights instilled in me the belief that everyone, regardless of race, sex, national origin or sexual orientation, is entitled to equal rights.

Consequently, with the civil union legislation no longer being a viable option, I was put in the position of deciding whether to support same-sex marriage or voting to continue the prohibition against same-sex marriage. As a strong proponent of personal and economic liberty/freedom, I simply could not, in good conscience, vote against SB 116.

I know that some may contend that since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, Maryland should continue to prohibit same sex marriage. First, let me state that I am a strong follower of Jesus Christ. I worked in youth ministries for many years. However, while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. As the state senator from District 9, I represent everyone in my district, regardless of their faith. Therefore, while my spiritual
life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.

I know that some will be upset with my decision to support SB 116 and I respect the fact that people have differing opinions on this issue. I carefully considered my decision.

I sought counsel from many people, including my family, clergy, advocates for both sides, fellow legislators and many others. These discussions were very helpful to me and I appreciate the time that those individuals took to talk with me. Ultimately, it was my strong feelings about civil rights that led me to decide to support SB 116.

[iamkeri1]

WOW!!!

You go, Kittleman!!!

A very brave stance, considering the attitude of his party.

Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

CA Supreme Court may decide as early as next week on Prop 8 question
By Adam Bink

As originally reported in the LA Times, today the California Supreme Court Chief Justice told reporters that the Court could decide soon, as early as next week, on the questions submitted regarding standing. As many of you know, before it will decide on the merits and issue of standing, the 9th Circuit submitted a request for clarification to the CASC on whether proponents of ballot initiatives have standing to represent the state.

Stay tuned for some news as early as next week. Of course, here at P8TT, we keep true to our name as #1 Google result for “Prop 8 trial”, so we’ll be bringing you the best coverage possible.

[MsTinkerbelly]

CALIFORNIA: State Supreme Court May Weigh In On Prop 8 Standing Next Week

Today the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue says the California Supreme Court will decide soon, maybe next week, on whether to enter the Proposition 8 gay marriage fray. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals said last month that it cannot decide if the gay marriage ban is constitutional until the state high court weighs in on whether proposition sponsors have authority to defend the measure. A three-judge panel asked the California Supreme Court to decide if ballot proposition backers can step in to defend voter-approved initiatives in court when state officials refuse to do so. The panel suggested it would have to dismiss the case if there's no state high court input.
If I'm reading this right, the Court is going to decide if it wants to decide.

[iamkeri1]

Hi Ms Tinkerbelly,
As always thank you for keeping us updated on this important case.

So am I right in my deduction that if the case is dismissed, that the 9th district circuit decision that Pro 8 is unconstitutional will stand? Meaning therefore that same sex marriage will be restored to legality in CA?

Thanks and smooches,
Keri

[betenoire]

And now for some comic relief.

I know this is old, but I just saw (again) the commercial that spoofs that awful "Gathering Storm" commercial.

It's great.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

Hi Ms Tinkerbelly,
As always thank you for keeping us updated on this important case.

So am I right in my deduction that if the case is dismissed, that the 9th district circuit decision that Pro 8 is unconstitutional will stand? Meaning therefore that same sex marriage will be restored to legality in CA?

Thanks and smooches,
Keri

The Governor and the Attorney General refused to defend Prop 8 in Court, and if the California Supreme Court decides lack of standing in the groups that ARE defending it, then the case would be thrown out. If that happens, Prop 8 would stand until we could once again VOTE on it. I believe that is the way it would happen...anyone?

I am a pretty positive person, but I think the case will be thrown out and we will be stuck with Prop 8 until the 2012 elections.

[iamkeri1]

CRAP!!!
Thanks Tink, but
CRAP!!!
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

HAWAII: Civil Unions Advances In House

Last month Hawaii's civil unions bill passed in the state Senate. And last night an 11-2 vote moved the bill out of committee and to the full House for a vote expected to be made in the next week or so.
The state House Judiciary Committee voted last night to approve a civil-unions bill with amendments to ensure that the relationships are recognized in the tax code and are under the jurisdiction of family court. "It's still fast-tracked. I think the Senate now has the opportunity just to agree to these amendments that probably should have been considered when it was first passed," Rep. Gil Keith-Agaran (D, Kahului-Paia), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said after the 11-2 vote

[betenoire]

Unmarry To Support Same-Sex Marriage

In support of same sex marriage and the freedom to love, Central Park’s Bethesda Fountain will be the site for a massive “unwedding” this Sunday, February 13th.

Video from last year's Unmarrying:

Reverend Billy officiated a ceremony to unmarry heterosexual couples until all people have the right to be married. This took place on February 14, 2010 (Valentine's Day) in Central Park at the Bethesda Fountain.
UnMarriage Until GayMarriage

[MsTinkerbelly]

Positive signs on marriage in New York, Maryland
By Adam Bink

Two good reports out this morning. One is from Julie at The Advocate, covering their NY beat as well as she always does. Gov. Cuomo’s remarks on the marriage bill, which is languishing in the Senate over uncertainty on the number of votes in hand, following his budget presentation at Hofstra University:

“I want to see it become the law of the state of New York and we’re going to take it up this session,” he said.

The comments marked the most specific to date from the Democrat about a timetable. In his state of the state address in January, he called for the bill to be passed “this year.”

The marriage equality bill has passed the assembly multiple times, but the measure failed in the senate in 2009 by a wide margin of 38–24, with no Republicans voting in favor. Senate majority leader Dean Skelos has promised not to block the bill from going to a vote.

According to The Journal News, when Cuomo was asked Wednesday what he was doing to get the bill passed in the Republican-controlled senate, he said, “We’re working very hard to pass it.”

A positive sign. For all of Gov. Paterson’s inabilities, I always gave him credit for being the most outspokenly pro-freedom to marry governor in every possible respect- actions, pressure, rhetoric. He relentlessly beat the drum harder than anyone. I’d love to see Gov. Cuomo follow in his footsteps.

In Maryland, Sen. Brochin, a previous opponent of the freedom to marry, announced his was switching to a yea vote. Statement from Equality Maryland and him following the hearings:

ANNAPOLIS, M.D., FEBRUARY 9, 2011–Senator Jim Brochin (D-42) held a press conference today where he announced that his support for marriage equality.

Statement from Equality Maryland, Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Executive Director

“Equality Maryland is proud of Senator Brochin’s declaration of support of civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples. His recent change of heart proves that when people have the facts, and hear the real life stories from loving and committed couples, hearts and minds can and do change. We welcome Senator Brochin to the growing coalition of elected officials from both sides of the aisle who have come to understand that ensuring equal treatment under the law is good public policy. There is no substitute for equality — and only civil marriage can confer the respect, protection and responsibility to same-sex couples in the same manner that it is conferred to opposite-sex couples.”

SENATOR BROCHIN’S STATEMENT RELEASED TO THE PRESS

After an almost 8-hour hearing on Tuesday, Senator Brochin found some of the opponents’ testimony on same-sex marriage (SB 116 – Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act) to be “troubling.” The Baltimore County Democrat had previously said he was against same-sex marriage, but is now reconsidering his stance.

“What I witnessed from the opponents of the bill was appalling.” Brochin said. “Witness after witness demonized homosexuals, vilified the gay community, and described gays and lesbians as pedophiles. I believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather people are born one way or another The proponents of the bill were straightforward in wanting to be simply treated as everyone else, and wanted to stop being treated as second-class citizens.

Brochin added, “For me, the transition to supporting marriage has not been an easy one, but the uncertainty, fear, and second-class status that gays and lesbians have to put up with is far worse and clearly must come to an end.”

This follows the former minority leader, Sen. Kittleman, announcing his switch to support the bill. The big mo’!

Update: One other note. I guess Maggie, who testified, only has herself and her cohorts to blame for Brochin’s switch, when you note how “witness after witness demonized homosexuals” etc. Good job, Maggie.

[MsTinkerbelly]

New chief justice says California Supreme Court will decide soon on entering Proposition 8 fray
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye discusses the possibility of weighing in on the federal appeal of Proposition 8 and her hope that a vacancy on the California Supreme Court be filled by a Southern California Latino.

Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil-Sakayue, pictured after swearing… (John G. Mabanglo / European Pressphoto Agency)February 03, 2011|By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from San Francisco — Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Wednesday that the California Supreme Court may decide "as soon as next week" whether to weigh in on the federal Proposition 8 appeal and expressed hope that a Southern California Latino would be chosen to succeed departing Justice Carlos R. Moreno.


In her first meeting with reporters since taking over for retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Cantil-Sakauye said she would meet with Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday and discuss the judicial branch budget and Moreno's successor.

Moreno, the only Democrat on the court, is leaving at the end of this month to make more money in the private sector. He was the sole justice on the court to vote to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

Cantil-Sakauye said Moreno had been an important "ambassador" for the court and as a resident of Los Angeles, had ensured the court has a strong presence there. She said geographic and ethnic diversity are important to the court, and "it really would be helpful" if Moreno's successor shares his heritage and residency.

Brown has yet to reveal his leanings on the subject, but his advisors have been examining several Latino candidates, including law professors. The court also has no African-American justice.

Gay rights activists have bemoaned Moreno's departure at a time when the court is being asked to play another critical role in Proposition 8. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the California high court to determine whether state law gives sponsors of initiatives the authority to defend them legally when state officials refuse to do so.

The state court has been highly deferential to initiatives in the past. If the court rules that initiative backers have special status under state law, the 9th Circuit would be more likely to rule on the constitutionally of Proposition 8.

Lawyers and law professors who have followed the case suspect that the 9th Circuit was prepared to dismiss the appeal by backers of Proposition 8 on the grounds that only state officials can challenge the trial court's ruling against the measure. Gay rights lawyers say such a ruling would mean Proposition 8's demise, but it would have no direct effect on same-sex marriage outside California

[blackboot]

Hawaii State House Approves Landmark Bill To Protect Same-Sex Couples


Today was a great day for Hawaii as the Hawaii House of Representatives passed SB 232 SD1 HD1 by a 31 - 19 vote!

The bill provides that the equal rights and responsibilities of married couples in Hawaii be available to thousands of unmarried couples in the state ... including same-sex couples.


After minor changes were made by House members, the bill now heads back to the Senate for agreement on the amendments before heading to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature. SB 232 SD1 passed the Hawaii Senate on Jan. 28 by a 19-6 vote.

Except for some technical corrections and implementation amendments, the bill is identical to HB 444, the civil unions bill passed in 2010. That bill passed the House and Senate with near supermajorities before Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed it. No override vote was held.

[MsTinkerbelly]

COLORADO: Civil Unions Bill Introduced

Openly gay Colorado state Sen. Pat Steadman introduced his civil unions bill today. One Colorado reports via press release:

The Colorado Civil Unions Act provides committed gay and lesbian couples with critical legal protections and responsibilities, such as the ability to insure a partner, to inherit property, to take family leave to care for a partner, to visit a partner in the hospital, and to make medical and end-of-life decisions for a partner. “Civil unions will allow committed couples to share in the responsibilities and protections in Colorado law that most families take for granted. Our society is stronger when we promote personal responsibility and taking care of one another, and civil unions do just that,” said Senator Pat Steadman, sponsor of the bill. A key provision of the civil unions bill includes a religious exclusion. The bill explicitly protects freedom of religion by not requiring priests, ministers, rabbis, or other religious officials to certify a civil union. Religious leaders who want to certify a civil union may do so.
According to a just-released poll, 72% of Colorado voters support legal recognitions for gay couples. Steadman's bill is expected to pass easily in the Democratic majority state Senate, but the GOP-led state House will be another story.

[MsTinkerbelly]

The NYTimes on the indefendable DOMA
By Adam Bink

Amazing NYTimes editorial yesterday (bolding mine):

In Defense of Marriage, for All
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible — officially sanctioned discrimination against one group of Americans imposed during an election year. President Obama seems to know that, or at least he has called on Congress to repeal it. So why do his government’s lawyers continue to defend the act in court?

The law, signed by President Bill Clinton, denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits granted to other married couples, including Social Security survivor payments and the right to file joint tax returns. When December’s repeal of the noxious “don’t ask, don’t tell” law goes into effect, gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans will be able to serve openly in the military but may not be entitled to on-base housing or a spouse’s burial in a national cemetery.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Justice Department lawyers have sought to distance the administration from Congress’s justifications for the marriage act, one of which was to “encourage responsible procreation.”

But just last month, the department appealed two rulings by Joseph Tauro, a federal trial judge in Massachusetts, who found that the law’s denial of benefits to married same-sex couples could not pass constitutional muster. We did not agree with some of the judge’s reasoning. He said the marriage act exceeded Congress’s powers and infringed on the state’s right to regulate marriage — an approach that could undermine many of the biggest federal social programs, including the new health care law.

But the department’s appellate brief also recycled the flimsy argument that the law had a plausible purpose in trying to maintain the federal status quo while states debated the issue of same-sex marriage. This argument was peculiar since the law overturned the federal status quo, which was to recognize all legal marriages.

Two new lawsuits, filed in Connecticut and New York, challenging the Defense of Marriage Act now offer the president a chance to put the government on the side of justice. We urge him to seize it when the administration files its response, which is due by March 11. The executive branch’s duty to defend federal laws is not inviolate. This one’s affront to equal protection is egregious.

Now a comment from Adam Bink..(Prop 8 Blogger)
[...]

On the merits, this should be an easy call. A law focusing on a group that has been subjected to unfair discrimination, as gay people have been, is supposed to get a hard test. It is presumed invalid unless the government proves that the officials’ purpose in adopting the law advances a real and compelling interest. That sort of heightened scrutiny would challenge the administration’s weak argument for upholding the act. It would also make it more difficult to sustain other forms of anti-gay discrimination, including state laws that deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

By now, such blatant discrimination should be presumed to be unconstitutional, and the Justice Department should finally say so. If conservatives in Congress want to enter the case to argue otherwise, so be it.

A hard test is right. This law advances no compelling interest