"So I see the genius of our Constitution, and of our society, is how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning," Ginsburg said in a far-ranging discussion of her work at the National Constitution Center, steps from the nation's founding at Independence Hall.

Ginsburg, the second woman named to the high court, has now served for 20 years and leads the court's liberal minority. Her increasingly candid and forceful writing – often as the voice of the dissent in 5-4 cases – has attracted ardent fans, including New York University law school student Shana Knizhnik, who wore a "Notorious R.B.G." t-shirt – a twist on the similarly named Brooklyn rapper.Knizhnik, 25, of Philadelphia, who designed the shirt and has sold about 2,000 of them, so admired the justice's writings and accomplishments that she started a blog this year devoted to "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in all her glory."

"Her story's so amazing and inspiring," said Knizhnik, who plans a career as a public defender. "The work she continues to do and fight for, despite the rightward direction the court seems to be going in. Especially seeing a woman up there is so great. I would love to have even a fraction of the career she's had." In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly decided pivotal issues by a single vote, from the Bush v. Gore election to the health care reform act to the June decision to strike down part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Ginsburg has often been on the losing side of the epic battles, but said some would have turned out differently had the first female justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, not retired in 2006.

"The year she left us, in every case where I was among the four, if she had remained, I would have been among the five. So her leaving the court made an enormous difference," Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg criticized her majority colleagues for what she called "activist" decisions that overturned laws better understood by Congress, such as the Voting Rights Act, which had been extended by a series of bipartisan presidents, most recently George W. Bush.

Ginsburg, 80, gave no hint she would wind down her judicial career anytime soon, noting that the fall docket includes such important issues as campaign finance limits and affirmative action. And, despite her sharp ideological differences with some colleagues, including close friend Antonin Scalia, she said their work environment remains cordial.

*************************

Beautiful song that describes the power of love. Message is being gay isn't a choice it is who you are and we all want the SAME LOVE. The video takes you on a journey with a boy who knows he is gay. Very emotional. It is moving and makes the idea of gay marriage seem reasonable, right and fair.

Issue: Why does the Church oppose government-sanctioned homosexual “marriages”?

Six months into his papacy, Pope Francis sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic church on Thursday with the publication of his remarks that the church had grown “obsessed” with abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he had chosen not to talk about those issues despite recriminations from critics.

The pope’s interview did not change church doctrine or policies, but it instantly changed its tone. His words evoked gratitude and hope from many liberal Catholics who had felt left out in the cold during the papacies of Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II, which together lasted 35 years. Some lapsed Catholics suggested on social media a return to the church, and leaders of gay rights and gay Catholic groups called on bishops to abandon their fight against gay marriage.

The interview with Francis was conducted by the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, an Italian Jesuit journal whose content is approved by the Vatican.

“I see the church as a field hospital after battle,” Francis said. “It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars. You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else.”

Asked what it means for him to “think with the church,” a phrase used by the Jesuit founder St. Ignatius, Francis said that it did not mean “thinking with the hierarchy of the church.”

Jim Yardley contributed reporting from Rome.  

***********************************

My family would be considered liberal Catholics and we are very excited about a church that embraces and welcomes everyone. I liked this article because it made Pope Francis seem human.

Five states now offer broad protections short of marriage. CO, HI, and IL allow civil union, while OR and NV offer broad domestic partnership. WI has more limited domestic partnership. With these advances, a record number of Americans live in states that recognize relationships between same-sex couples:

• Over 35% of the U.S. population lives in a state that either has the freedom to marry or honors out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.
• Over 41% of the U.S. population lives in a state with either marriage or a broad legal status such as civil union or domestic partnership.
• Over 43% of the U.S. population lives in a state that provides some form of protections for gay couples.  
  

A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.

Here’s the problem: The national discussion of same-sex marriage treats the issue like a game of checkers, where opponents can quickly gain each other’s pieces without much forethought about the consequences.

The tide has turned. Same-sex marriage proponents now have all the “kings” on the board, and rule it. One only needs to consider media headlines from the last few weeks. We are bombarded with approvals of same-sex marriage. To the casual onlooker, not steeped in this issue, it would seem that conservatism has embraced same-sex marriage. Each day brings fresh news of Republican political elites, Fortune 500 companies, NFL members, and even Dirty Harry himself, Clint Eastwood, throwing their support behind genderless marriage.

The sense of urgency regarding same-sex marriage, now palpably frenetic, is in itself a sign of our national discussion’s devolution into nothing more than slogans and emotions.

Genderless marriage now enjoys an aura of equality and fairness, which suggests that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had same-sex marriages in mind as they penned their magnificent giant leap forward for humanity. While this situation is highly unlikely, those who selfishly seek additional “rights” for themselves have found their justification in the penumbra they now sense surrounding legitimate civil rights. Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.

Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.

For a nation that has no trouble selfishly creating a seventeen-trillion-dollar (and growing) deficit it will soon hand off to its children and grandchildren, perhaps this is asking too much. But for the sake of all children and those yet to be born, we need to slow down and seriously consider the unintended consequences of undefining marriage. Otherwise, we risk treating our progeny as expendable pawns, sacrificed in the name of self-fulfillment. We can do better than that.