Episcopal bishops, priests, and lay people from across the country gathered in Washington, D.C., yesterday to demand federal legislation that would help end gun violence, urging lawmakers to take action on the issue while celebrating a special version of the Christian devotion known as the Stations of the Cross.

Hundreds of participants braved wintry conditions on Monday morning as they gathered in front of St. John’s Church for the event, with many attendees wrapping heavy scarves around their clerical collars and brandishing signs that read “Stop the killing of our children” and “Thou shall not allow murder.”

Participants then sang hymns as they processed down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the U.S. Capitol, stopping at several locations along the way to recount the Biblical story of Jesus’ crucifixion and pray for those affected by gun violence.

“Today we walk in acknowledgement of the things done and left undone that have contributed to a culture of violence,” said Bishop Laura Ahrens, Suffragan Bishop of Connecticut, as she read from a statement written by another Connecticut priest. “We must acknowledge our sins, individually and collectively.”

Leaders of the event, which included more than 20 Episcopal bishops from all over the United States, met with White House officials before the march to discuss the need for legislation that would prevent gun violence. Speakers at the service praised elected officials working to end gun-related tragedies, noting how incidents such as the recent killing of elementary school students by a gunman in Newtown, Connecticut could be prevented with the help of new laws.

“The victims of each of these shootings are members of our families, religious congregations, and communities, and we continue to grieve for the living as well as the dead,” said Mark Beckwith, Bishop of Newark, as he read a statement written by Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. “I commend the resolve of lawmakers who believe the time has arrived when our nation must come together to ask the difficult questions, and to discern what may be equally challenging answers, about how we can begin to break the cycles of violence that lead to massacres in suburban schools and routine death on the streets of our cities.”

But while bishops were upbeat about positive developments on Capitol Hill, they also expressed impatience with Washington’s beleaguered attempts to push gun violence prevention legislation through Congress. They urged lawmakers to break partisan gridlock and take meaningful action, particularly in light of the string of high-profile mass shootings that rocked American communities and congregations this past year.

“Leadership is sensitivity that identifies when an event has to have a response,” said Bishop Steve Miller of Milwaukee as he read a statement penned by Barbara A. Campbell.

Dozens of faith groups and religious leaders have spoken out against gun violence in recent weeks. Organizations such as PICO National Network and Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence helped organize a “National Gun Violence Sabbath” earlier this month, where more than 1,000 congregations – including the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. – held Sunday services and events that called for federal legislation that would end bloodshed caused by gun violence. In addition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns released a video in mid-March that showcased clergy members calling for sensible legislation on the issue, and PICO recently announced that clergy from Newtown, Connecticut have joined more than 4,000 other religious leaders from across the nation in signing a letter to the Senate demanding action on gun violence prevention.

Our guest blogger is Jack Jenkins, a Writer and Researcher with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative.

New Jersey is one of a dwindling number of states that doesn’t allow its residents to cast in-person votes prior to Election Day. That could change for the Garden State with a stroke of Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) pen.

Late last week, the State Assembly passed S 2364 by a 46-31 vote, following the Senate’s 24-16 approval. The bill would open polling places for 15 days before Election Day, giving residents flexibility to cast a ballot at their convenience. However, Christie has yet to take a position on the matter, and some prognosticators suspect he’ll veto the bill.

New Jersey currently allows citizens to mail in a ballot early, but there’s still a strong need for in-person early voting, as the New Jersey Star-Ledger explains:

The vote was mostly along party lines, which could indicate the governor is unlikely to sign the legislation.

Under the bill, polling places would be open all week, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays, and from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays. The cost of the program is estimated at $22 million, although sponsors said it could be done more cheaply without buying costly new equipment.

Democrats say voting complications caused by Hurricane Sandy demonstrate the need for the program.

Early voting is an important and popular voting reform that arose primarily after the 2000 presidential election debacle. Now, all but 16 states offer some form of early voting. Americans take advantage of the option, too; around one-third of all voters now cast their ballots before Election Day, including nearly 80 percent in some states like Colorado.

In the moments before the U.S. Supreme Court began its historic oral arguments in the challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban, the court issued its decision in a case with very different but important constitutional implications.

In a 5-4 decision in which the justices split along unusual lines, the court led by Justice Antonin Scalia held that police sniffing around for drug activity cannot bring their drug dog to the front door of a private home without probable cause – usually a warrant. The case is the second in two years to affirm traditional property-based limits on government invasions of privacy, although in very different contexts.

In this case, detectives who received a tip that the defendant was growing marijuana in his home walked up to his front door with a drug dog by their side, and used the signals from the dog as the basis to obtain a search warrant and enter the suspect’s home. The crux of the justices’ disagreement comes down to whether Detective Bartlett’s chocolate labrador, Franky, was just another dog entitled to wander up to someone’s home, or whether his special olfactory skills and training made him more analogous to a pair of high-powered binoculars. Justice Elena Kagan explains in her concurrence:

As this Court discussed earlier this Term, drug-detection dogs are highly trained tools of law enforcement, geared to respond in distinctive ways to specific scents so as to convey clear and reliable information to their human partners.  They are to the poodle down the street as high-powered binoculars are to a piece of plain glass. Like the binoculars, a drug-detection dog is a specialized device for discovering objects not in plain view (or plain smell). And as in the hypothetical above, that device was aimed here at a home—the most private and inviolate (or so we expect) of all the places and things the Fourth Amendment protects. Was this activity a trespass? Yes, as the Court holds today. Was it also an invasion of privacy? Yes, that as well.

Not so, said the dissenters, led by Justice Samuel Alito. Alito reasons that a dog’s sniffing skills have been used for centuries, and that if there were really a distinction to be made concerning drug-sniffing dogs, that case would have come up already. The dissenters – three conservatives with Justice Breyer as an unusual ally – also reject the reasoning by the concurring Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg that analogizes the drug dog case to the landmark Kyllo decision, in which the court rejected the use of thermal imaging technology to monitor a home. That case was about new technology, they said, and this case is about old tactics.

But whether using new or old technology, the nature of the surveillance by police is relatively new. Drug dogs are among the many tools of the 40-year-old drug war, and in the latest expansion of their use, we are seeing them creep into public schools. Last year’s case invalidating warrantless GPS monitoring, decided on similar grounds, was also a case about drugs. And many of the millions of newly aggressive stop-and-frisks by the New York Police Department resulted in arrests for nothing more than possession of small amounts of marijuana. In taking a sober look back at the strategies law enforcers justified at the height of the drug war, the invasiveness of police implementation will be just as important as the tactics themselves in determining both whether they pass Fourth Amendment muster, and whether they are tailored to meet public safety goals.

WASHINGTON, DC — There are probably five justices who object to California’s anti-gay Proposition 8 and who would prefer to see it struck down. Justice Kennedy, the conservative viewed as most likely to provide the fifth vote for equality, openly pondered whether Prop 8 violates the Constitution’s ban on gender discrimination. Kennedy at one point admitted uncertainty about whether there is sufficient evidence examining the effect of marriage equality on society, but he then pivoted to note that the nearly 40,000 children raised by gay parents in California suffer “immediate legal injury” because of Prop 8. His vote is not entirely clear, but Kennedy leaned significantly in the direction of justice.

A weak performance by Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending discrimination, probably went a long way to push Kennedy into the pro-equality camp. When Justice Sotomayor asked Cooper to identify a single example outside of marriage where discrimination against gay couples could be “rational,” Cooper responded “I cannot,” prompting Sotomayor to note that Cooper had more or less conceded that gay people meet the definition of a class entitled to heightened protection under the Constitution. Under longstanding precedent, a group which has experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment‘ or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” enjoys enhanced protection under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Similarly, when Cooper argued that same-sex marriages could somehow undermine opposite-sex marriages, Kagan asked him to explain the “cause and effect” behind this point. When Cooper fumbled the question, Kennedy pounced, asking if Cooper was “conceding the point” that same-sex couples are not a threat to other people’s marriages. Cooper was left to meekly assert that it is “impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be.”

Yet the question of whether California’s same-sex couples enjoy the blessings of liberty was rapidly eclipsed by a different, unspoken question — whether gay couples in Alabama also enjoy those rights. Three justices, Roberts, Scalia and Alito asked hostile questions to the attorneys supporting equality and appear very unlikely to vote against Prop 8. Similarly, while Thomas was characteristically silent, no one expects him to break from his past, anti-equality opinions in gay rights cases. Of the remaining five, at least three spent much of the argument grasping for ways to limit the scope of a decision striking down Prop 8.

Sotomayor, at one point, asked pro-equality attorney Ted Olson whether the Court’s decision could be limited to just California. Kennedy worried about the “uncharted waters” facing the Court if it struck down marriage discrimination nationwide. Justice Ginsburg, who famously accused Roe v. Wade of moving “too far, too fast,” alluded to the fact that racial marriage discrimination ended in two stages — first the Court struck down bans on interracial cohabitation, then it struck down bans on interracial marriage. The clear implication was that the Court could be similarly incremental here.
Read more

Early in this morning’s Supreme Court oral argument over the constitutionality of the California ban on same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the children of same-sex couples suffer “immediate legal injury” from Proposition 8, according to Bloomberg. “They want their parents to have full recognition and status,” Kennedy said, adding that the “voice of those children” is important.

Kennedy, who is likely the swing vote, also suggested he was very uncomfortable striking down Proposition 8, according to a tweet from SCOTUSblog. Kennedy raised dismissing the case, which would leave in place the lower court ruling invalidating the same-sex marriage ban, but would not set any precedent about equal rights or marriage equality.

In response to Kennedy’s assertion, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether children would actually be harmed by Proposition 8, saying there is “considerable disagreement” about the “consequences” of same-sex marriage. “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it’s certainly true there is no answer to that scientific question,” he said, according to tweets from the Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly.

Beginning this morning, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that could recognize the right of everyone, straight or gay, to marry the person they love. The first concerns California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, and could potentially extend the right to marry to same-sex couples in all fifty states. The second challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and could end the federal government’s practice of denying equal benefits to couples who are legally married under state law. Here is everything you need to know to understand these cases:

How The Court Could Rule

– A Broad Decision: The best, and most obvious, decision would be for the justices to follow the Constitution and the clear command of precedent and extend marriage equality to all fifty states. It is fairly likely, however, that at least one member of the majority will be too cautious to require Alabama to follow the Constitution, even if they are prepared to order California to do so. If the justices punt on the Alabama question, the important question is whether they hold that anti-gay laws are subject to “heightened scrutiny,” a skeptical kind of constitutional analysis that will make it very difficult for anti-gay discrimination to withstand court review in the future.

— A One-Off: The Ninth Circuit proposed a way to strike down Prop 8 while leaving most other states free to engage in marriage discrimination (the court said that voters were not permitted to withdraw the right to marry once it had been established by the state Supreme Court). The logic of the ruling was thus confined to California. Similarly, two of the Court’s most important gay rights opinions relied on very narrow reasoning that advanced equality only incrementally. It is possible the justices will repeat this performance.

– Jurisdictional Dodges: In both cases, the Court could potentially rule that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, a decision that would cast a cloud of uncertainty over the rights of gay couples.

– A Stealth Attack: Several prominent conservatives are pushing a dangerous legal theory that would strike down DOMA on states’ rights grounds, and potentially endanger Social Security, veterans benefits and progressive taxation in the process.

– A Loss: Ultimately, however, it is important to remember that this is a severely conservative Court, and even so-called swing vote Justice Kennedy is a severely conservative justice. Equality could lose.

What To Expect From The Justices

– The Democratic Appointees: It would be very surprising if any of the Court’s four Democrats vote to uphold discrimination. While some commentators have noted Justice Ginsburg’s critical statements about Roe v. Wade — “It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast” — this statement suggests Ginsburg might take an incremental approach, not that she will vote to uphold discrimination. Chance of pro-equality vote: more than 90 percent.

– Justice Kennedy: Kennedy is the author of two narrowly reasoned, but very important cases upholding gay rights. His record on gay rights is not perfect, however. Kennedy cast the key vote holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to engage in anti-gay discrimination, and he’s behaved less and less like a moderate swing vote and more and more like a hardline conservative in recent years. His vote for equality is likely, but not certain, and is more likely than not to rest on very narrow reasoning. Chance of pro-equality vote: 60-70 percent.

– Justice Thomas: Thomas is the Court’s most conservative member, but he once called Texas’ “sodomy” ban an “uncommonly silly” law, and he cares a great deal shrinking federal power until it is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. Indeed, Thomas believes federal child labor laws and the nationwide ban on whites-only lunch counters are unconstitutional on states’ rights grounds. For this reason, it is possible he will be attracted to the claim that DOMA violates states’ rights. There’s no chance he’ll vote to strike Prop 8, however. Chance of pro-equality vote: 20 percent on DOMA, 0 percent on Prop 8.

– Chief Justice Roberts: Roberts has a lesbian cousin who will attend the marriage arguments as his personal guest, and he once did pro bono work on behalf of gay rights activists when he was an attorney in private practice. Nevertheless, Roberts remains very conservative and has a long record of criticizing decisions that read the Constitution’s promise of equality broadly. If Roberts does vote with a pro-equality majority, it is just as likely that he will do so in order to wrest control of the opinion and narrow it as he would to extend the blessings of liberty to gay Americans. Chance of pro-equality vote: 10 percent.

– Justice Alito: Alito is probably the toughest conservative questioner on the Court, and he has emerged as a strong advocate for whatever outcome conservatives prefer. Chance of pro-equality vote: less than one percent.

– Justice Scalia: In past opinions, Scalia compared homosexuality to murder, drug addiction, bestiality, incest and child pornography. Chance of pro-equality vote: 0 percent. Chance his opinion will accuse pro-equality justices of kowtowing to the “homosexual agenda”: 99.99 percent.

Surging Support For Marriage Equality

– Marriage Equality Has Strong Bipartisan Support: Retired Judge Vaughn Walker, the first judge to strike down Prop 8, is a Republican appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush. Three of the court of appeals judges that voted to declare DOMA unconstitutional are Republicans. 131 top Republicans, including six former Republican governors, filed a brief supporting marriage equality.

– The American People Support Marriage Equality: Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Among adults under 30, support is at 81 percent.

The Constitution guarantees “the equal protection of the laws” — and that includes same-sex couples. As the Supreme Court has explained, this guarantee is most robust when applied to groups that experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment‘ or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities.” LGBT Americans undoubtedly fit this description, and thus neither DOMA nor Prop 8 can stand.