CBSTV Videos
Supreme Court paves way for same-sex marriage in Alabama

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's move on Monday to allow gay marriage to proceed in Alabama is the strongest signal yet that the justices are likely to rule in June that no state can restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples.

Of the nine justices, only two - conservatives Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia - dissented from the court's refusal to block gay weddings from starting in Alabama. Gay marriage is now legal in 37 states.

Thomas acknowledged in a dissenting opinion that the court’s move to allow gay marriages to go ahead "may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution" as it considers cases from four other states on whether same-sex marriage bans are permitted under the U.S. Constitution. Although only two justices publicly dissented, the court order did not reveal whether any other justices voted to grant the stay.

Oral arguments in the cases, which are expected to result in a definitive nationwide ruling on the matter, are due in April with a decision expected by the end of June.

Gay rights groups shared Thomas' view.

View gallery

Shanté Wolfe, left and Tori Sisson, right, sit near the Montgomery County Courthouse Sunday, …

Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign's legal director, said the justices' action on Alabama "has telegraphed there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer."

The group also told same-sex couples in the 13 states where gay marriage is still banned to "start your wedding plans now."

Thomas' words echoed Scalia's 2013 dissent from the court's decision to invalidate a federal law that denied benefits to same-sex couples. Scalia predicted that the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in that case would give judges a green light to strike down state gay marriage bans. That's exactly what happened.

At the time of that ruling, only 12 of the 50 states permitted gay marriage. That number has now hit 37, with federal judges playing the central role in paving the way for gay marriage in 23 of the 25 states where it has become legal since then.

As Thomas noted in his dissent, the court's normal practice would have been to put the Alabama case on hold until it had decided the cases involving the same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan.

View gallery

Two bride figurines are seen during a rally in response to the California Supreme Court's ruling …

One of the factors the court considers when deciding whether to put a hold on a lower-court ruling is the "likelihood of success" for the petitioners if the case were to be appealed.

The court in recent months has denied similar stay requests from other states, most recently Florida, thus allowing gay marriage to go ahead even while litigation continues.

Alabama's case was different as it was the first application to be made after the high court's announcement in January to take the four cases and settle the matter once and for all.

(This version of the story adds Kentucky to list of four states in paragraph)

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

FOX News Videos
President blames media for exaggerating ISIS threat

WASHINGTON (AP) — In seeking new war powers to fight the Islamic State group, the White House must reconcile demands from Democrats who don't want another ground war with the concerns of Republicans who want that option left open, congressional officials said Monday.

Obama is expected — as early as Tuesday — to send Capitol Hill his blueprint for an updated authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF. Haggling then begins on writing a new authorization to battle the Sunni extremists, who have seized territory in Iraq and neighboring Syria and imposed a violent form of Shariah law.

Obama so far has relied on congressional authorizations that former President George W. Bush used to justify military action after 9/11. Critics say the White House's use of these authorizations to fight IS is a legal stretch at best. The president earlier insisted he had the legal authority to deploy 2,763 U.S. troops in Iraq to train and assist Iraqi security forces, and conduct ongoing airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria. More recently, the president has said he wants a new authorization, but has not released details.

A congressional official said the president will ask for a three-year authorization so the next president will have to seek renewed authority to fight IS. The official said Obama wants to leave open the option to send in combat forces if needed, but is not seeking an authorization that would permit a prolonged U.S. troop presence on the ground. The White House request also would not restrict the fight to certain geographic locations, but would limit the U.S. to fighting IS militants or any future group that they become, the official said.

One congressional aide said Democrats will not rubber-stamp the White House version, but will seek to rewrite it to include bipartisan views. Another congressional staffer said the debate in Congress will not necessarily flow along party lines because conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, for instance, have disagreed about two major sticking points: deploying U.S. combat troops and restricting the geographical area served by the new authorization. The second staffer said a final authorization will depend on the language decided on regarding these two issues.

The congressional official and staffers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing negotiations with the White House.

View gallery

Broken glass remains at the scene of a suicide bomb attack at Adan Square, located in a predominantl …

Generally, conservatives want Congress to approve broad authorities for the president to fight IS with no limits on ground troops or geography. They say banning U.S. combat troops or restricting the fight to Iraq and Syria emboldens the militants, who would not have to worry about attacks from U.S. ground forces and could seek safe haven outside those two nations.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the new authorization should be flexible enough so it can be used not only against IS, but also against whatever form the group takes in the future, as well as any groups that associate with or support it materially.

"Most importantly, the authorization should not impose any artificial and unnecessary limitations such as those based on time, geography and type of force that could interfere with our strategic objective of defeating Islamic State," Hatch said Monday on the Senate floor.

He said he disagreed with those who want to prohibit the use of ground forces or set an expiration date for the authorization.

"These are restrictions that the Islamic State could use to its advantage," Hatch said. "If we are telling the Islamic State upfront that we will not use ground forces, will they not tailor their strategy around that fact? If we advertise when the authorization expires at an arbitrary date ... will they not hunker down and wait for that date?"

Other lawmakers want the new war powers to be narrowly defined to something that gives the president the authority to train and equip local forces and conduct airstrikes, but not launch a combat mission on the ground.

"I've been clear in opposition to boots on the ground, but I'd like to see what they propose and hear them out," said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. "It's traditional and expected for an administration to articulate their strategy to the Congress, so we want to give them a chance to do so."

In December, Secretary of State John Kerry offered Congress a preview of what the White House would want in an authorization measure. But it's not clear if any of the provisions Kerry mentioned to lawmakers still reflects the administration's thinking. Kerry said at the time that Congress should not limit U.S. military action to Iraq and Syria or prevent the president from deploying ground troops if he later deems them necessary. Kerry also said that while the administration does not seek an open-ended authorization, it wants it to include a provision for it to be extended.

___

Associated Press writer Nedra Pickler in Washington contributed to this report.

Wochit
UN Urges More Regional Military Coordination Against Boko Haram

Abuja (AFP) - Nigeria insisted it will crush Boko Haram militants and avoid another election postponement, even as violence raged and the Islamists' leader vowed to defeat a regional force hunting them.

National Security Advisor Sambo Dasuki's comments came as Boko Haram launched another attack in neighbouring Niger and reports emerged of 20 people kidnapped in Cameroon, with 12 of them executed.

Niger's parliament voted unanimously on Monday to send troops to join the regional fightback against the extremists, who have seized swathes of northern Nigeria in a conflict that has claimed more than 13,000 lives since 2009.

Dasuki, who at the weekend secured a six-week delay to Nigeria's presidential elections, vowed that "all known Boko Haram camps will be taken out" by the time of the rescheduled vote.

"They won't be there. They will be dismantled," he told AFP in an interview when asked what gains could be made against the Islamists before the new polling date of March 28.

Nigeria has previously set deadlines to defeat the insurgents that have come and gone.

But Dasuki said that even if the goal was not achieved "the situation then would surely be conducive enough for elections", with no need for a further postponement to voting.

View gallery

A screengrab taken on October 2, 2014 from a video released by Boko Haram and obtained by AFP shows …

Meanwhile Boko Haram chief Abubakar Shekau mocked west African leaders' multinational force in a new video on YouTube on Monday, saying it "won't achieve anything."

The Islamists last week opened up a new front in Niger after sustained attacks in Cameroon's far northern region, which led to the deployment of Chadian troops alongside Cameroon forces.

They have widened their offensive in recent weeks in the far north-east of Nigeria around Lake Chad, where the borders of all four countries converge.

Niger, while housing thousands of refugees from the conflict, had been mainly spared the violence until last week. Monday's unanimous parliamentary vote to send troops to join the fightback will see some 750 soldiers deployed, a lawmaker said.

Just hours before the vote, militant fighters raided a prison in Diffa, southeast Niger, but were repelled.

A deadly explosion then ripped through a local market, with one local merchant saying: "Everything blew up -- I saw bodies everywhere."

View gallery

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau (C) makes a statement in a video posted online on February 9, 2015 …

On Sunday, suspected Islamists kidnapped 20 passengers aboard a bus going from Koza to Mora in the far north of Cameroon, then killed 12 of them and released the rest.

"Every day citizens are frequently kidnapped in this region," a security source said. "Some are usually freed when their families negotiate, while others are killed."

- Militants mock regional fightback -

Boko Haram released three new videos on YouTube, one of them a 28-minute speech from its leader Shekau in an undisclosed location flanked by eight masked fighters.

He dismissed the threat from regional forces, stating: "Your alliance will not achieve anything."

Nigeria maintains that the involvement of troops from Chad and Cameroon is part of an existing agreement to fight the Islamists between countries in the Lake Chad region.

View gallery

Chadian soldiers involved in the fight against Boko Haram patrol in the Cameroonian town of Fotokol, …

On Saturday, Nigeria and its neighbours -- Chad, Niger, Cameroon and Benin -- agreed to muster 8,700 troops, police and civilians for a wider, African Union-backed force against Boko Haram.

The United States estimates Shekau as having between 4,000 to 6,000 hardcore fighters at his disposal, and he mocked regional efforts to defeat them.

"You send 7,000 troops? Why don't you send seven million?" he said in Arabic.

"By Allah, it is small. We can seize them one by one."

Shekau also directly threatened Chad's President Idriss Deby, whose forces have attacked Boko Haram in the northeast Nigerian towns of Gamboru and Malam Fatori in recent days.

- 'We rose up to fight the world' -

Shekau's speech appeared to put the Boko Haram insurgency in the wider context of global jihad, possibly in response to the regional nature of the conflict.

In the last six years, the group has mainly operated in three states in northeast Nigeria, taking over a succession of towns and villages as part of its aim to create a hardline Islamic state.

Boko Haram has been considered to have essentially local aims and is thought to have few direct, operational links to jihadi groups elsewhere, although it is believed to include some foreign fighters, most likely paid mercenaries.

But Shekau has mentioned groups such as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the leader of the so-called Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

One of the three latest videos shows Baghdadi with archive footage and a voiceover recalling a battle between British soldiers and fighters from the Sokoto Caliphate in northern Nigeria.

The Sokoto Caliphate was dismantled by British colonialists who annexed the northern Islamic kingdoms and the predominantly Christian south to form Nigeria in the early 20th century.

In his speech Shekau appears to broaden the group's aim: "We never rose up to fight Africa. We rose up to fight the world.

"We are going to fight the world on the principle that whoever doesn't obey Allah and the Prophet to either obey or die or become a slave."

At least 51 of 67 Alabama counties were not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples today in defiance of a federal ruling to do so, according to an ABC News count.

Among the Alabamans affected today were Joe Baker and Russell Wilson, who said their excitement turned to disappointment as they headed to the Mobile, Alabama, courthouse to get a marriage license and found the office window closed.

"We thought the windows were going to open at 8 [a.m.]," Baker said. "They just [kept] delaying it and delaying it."

What Today's Supreme Court Move on Marriage Means

Poll Shows Growing Support for Same Sex Marriage

Instead of signing marriage licenses, Baker and Wilson gathered with several other same-sex couples today in a law office to file new petitions.

"No windows open. No marriage license," Wilson said. "We waited 33 years for this. ... It's a big disappointment."

It was a chaotic day for same-sex couples as a U.S. Supreme Court decision made Alabama the 37th state today to allow same-sex marriages. On Sunday night, a state chief justice ordered county judges to deny the licenses and today Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said he was "disappointed" in a federal appeals court's decision to allow the unions but would not take action against judges who issued licenses.

While some gay Alabamans were able to get marriage licenses, others had less to celebrate. At least 51 counties had refused to issue marriage licenses today, according to the ABC News count.

The turmoil was set in motion last Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled against delaying the overturning of Alabama's gay-marriage bans, with U.S. District Judge Callie Granade calling it unconstitutional.

State Attorney General Luther Strange then asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay on the marriages until the high court took up the nationwide issue in the spring.

Then, on Sunday night, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, a vocal opponent of gay marriage, ordered county probate judges to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples today, despite Granade's having ruled that probate judges had a legal duty to issue the licenses.

Moore reportedly called homosexuality an "evil" in a 2002 custody ruling. Today, he told ABC News that gay marriage is wrong and that only he had the authority over judges who issue marriage licenses.

"I think redefinition of the word 'marriage' is not found within the powers designated in the federal government," he said. "Do they stop with one man and one man or one woman and one woman? ... Or do they go to multiple marriages or marriages between men and their daughters or women and their sons?"

This morning, however, the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to halt today's start of the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. Moore said the Supreme Court would decide on the matter but until then, he'd fight against gay marriage.

Many judges started granting marriage licenses today and critics blasted Moore for ordering county judges to go against a federal judge. Some state judges said they wanted further information from the courts before they permitted marriage licenses.

The National Organization for Marriage backs the state chief justice and any probate judges who are defying the Supreme Court today. The group says it encourages "Alabama officials to refuse to comply" with the federal court decision.

But Susan Watson, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, called the Alabama chief justice's actions "grandstanding."

She said his order had no authority over probate court judges and that they risked being sued if they followed his order. "I didn't know how long it would take for [same-sex marriage] to happen here," Watson said.

Watson said the ACLU of Alabama had received more than 40 complaints so far from couples who had been turned away. She said the next step for Alabama would be potential legal action to get all the state courts on the same page regarding same-sex marriage licenses.

Moore said today the US Supreme Court would decide on the matter but until then, he'd fight against gay marriage.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

CBSTV Videos
Supreme Court paves way for same-sex marriage in Alabama

After the Supreme Court declines to block same-sex marriages in Alabama, Justice Clarence Thomas dissents.
Stinging remarks