'Who am I to judge?': The pope's most powerful phrase in 2013

   Peter Macdiarmid / Getty Images fileNewly elected Pope Francis appears on the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica on March 13, 2013, in Vatican City. Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the 266th Pontiff and will lead the world's 1.2 billion Catholics.By Tracy Connor, Staff Writer, NBC News Gregorio Borgia / AP fileA child takes off Pope Francis' white zucchetto, or skullcap, during a meeting with children and volunteers of the Santa Marta Vatican Institute, at the Vatican, on Dec. 14, 2013.Could five little words uttered in 2013 change the course of the Catholic Church?Pope Francis — also known as Time's Person of the Year and Twitter's #bestpopeever — has done a lot of talking since he was installed on the throne of St. Peter in March, tackling everything from luxury cars to income inequality in a series of interviews, sermons and written exhortations.But for veteran Vatican watcher John Thavis, the pontiff's most significant pontificating came July 29 when he gave a press conference on a flight back from Brazil."Who am I to judge?" he asked.Francis was addressing the issue of gays in the church, but it was the tone as much as the topic that caught the public's attention."The fact is that previous popes in talking about homosexuality had always mentioned the word 'disordered' and when you use that term, it immediately alienates," said Thavis, author of "The Vatican Diairies.""Not only did Francis not use that word. He avoided the whole concept."The fact that the pope — the infallible leader of the world's 1 billion Roman Catholics — refused to sit in judgement of gay priests (who were banned by his predecessor) was hailed as remarkable, even revolutionary. Luca Zennaro / Pool via AP filePope Francis blesses a child during his visit to the Varginha slum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on July 25, 2013. Francis visited one of Rio de Janeiro's shantytowns, or favelas, a place that saw such rough violence in the past that it's known by locals as the Gaza Strip.It's an approach he has taken on any number of subjects — atheists, unwed mothers, divorcees. Scolding is out in Rome; hand-holding is in."This comes after Pope John Paul II spent 15 years rewriting the catechism of the Catholic Church and eight years of Benedict reinforcing that: 'How do you measure up to our teachings? Are you qualified to call yourself Catholic?'" Thavis said. "Francis is saying the church is a big tent and he has to be welcoming. It's an incredible change."For Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest like Francis, the most important words from Francis this year were written, not spoken."Look at the title of his latest apostolic exhortation. It's 'the joy of the Gospel,' not the 'the truth of the Gospel,'" he said."He has rebranded the church as welcoming, compassionate, a church for the poor as opposed to a church that nags people and is worried about rules and regulations," said Reese, author of "Inside the Vatican.""The analogy I love to use is when you go home for Christmas, what you want is a hug from your mom. You don't want to be asked about your nose ring, or why you dyed your hair, or who are you sleeping with now? He is trying to turn the church into a loving parent, not a nagging parent."More often than not, when asked which of Francis' comments this year resonated most with them, Catholics immediately mentioned his gestures, not his quotes. Osservato Romano / Reuters filePope Francis holds a dove before his Wednesday general audience at Saint Peter's Square at the Vatican, on May 15, 2013.Riding the bus back to the guest house after being named pope. Washing the feet of prisoners on Holy Thursday. Turning an '84 Renault into the Popemobile. Celebrating his birthday with the homeless. Embracing a disfigured fan. Cold-calling people who write to him.Some have suggested it's style over substance. Despite what he says and no matter how many selfies he takes with visitors, Francis has not changed church doctrine.Priests still can't get married, abortion remains a grave sin, and two men can't walk up the aisle in a Catholic Church. Francis even excommunicated an Australian priest who advocated the ordination of women and gay marriage.And yet his words have given hope to those pushing for change.Deborah Rose Milovec, the head of FutureChurch, which supports the ordination of women, seized on this line from his November apostolic exhortion: "Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded.""Giving people permission to dialogue — that's a breath of fresh air," she said. "There are many ways he has held his hand up and said, 'No, not yet,' but that sort of statement begins to open a crack in the door."That kind of statement is important because it says to me we have something to work with here. I have real hope he will sit down with feminist theologians and listen to what they have to say."If there is one theme that has dominated Francis' public pronouncements this year it has been his love and sympathy for the poor and downtrodden."How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor," he said days after the black smoke wafted out of the Sistine Chapel chimney. His November exhortation slammed unchecked capitalism and income inequality.Rush Limbaugh frothed that the new pope is a Marxist. But in Melbourne, Fla., Kathy Gilliland, 56, liked what she was hearing.Visiting the majestic St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City this week, Gilliland said it both surprised and delighted her that her spiritual leader — who has forsaken the opulent trappings of the Vatican for a spartan guest house — understood the struggles of the middle class at a time when the wealthy are richer than ever."I think it shows he's in touch with the modern world," she said. "It shows he's more humane."The magazine's managing editor, Nancy Gibbs, tells Matt Lauer that Pope Francis was selected for changing the tone of the Vatican.

Federal judge allows same-sex marriage in Utah to continue

 NBC News' Pete Williams reports on the breaking news that a federal judge has refused, for the third time, to halt same-sex marriages in Utah.By Erik Ortiz, Staff Writer, NBC NewsSame-sex marriages in Utah can continue after a federal judge denied the state’s request Monday to put a temporary hold on the unions.State attorneys argued the stay is necessary while they appeal U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling Friday that allows gays and lesbians to marry.Shelby, unsurprisingly, decided not to halt his own decision. His earlier ruling had struck down a 2004 state law denying same-sex couples the right to wed, saying the ban is unconstitutional. Jim Urquhart / ReutersNatalie Dicou (left) and her partner Nicole Christensen wait for a marriage license at the Salt Lake County Clerks office in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Friday. A federal judge struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.It’s the latest blow in the battle over gay marriage for Utah’s attorney general. A federal appeals court in Denver on Sunday rejected the state’s initial request for a stay, essentially saying Shelby must rule on the motion first.Now that he has, the state has gone back to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to file for another emergency stay request.Stuart Gaffney, a spokesman for Marriage Equality USA, said Shelby upholding gay marriage in Utah is “one of the greatest gifts of all” for supporters.“It’s real impossible to argue that marriage equality hurts anybody. It’s now the law in 18 states plus the District of Columbia,” Gaffney told NBC News.When news first broke Friday of Shelby’s ruling, an estimated 100 same-sex couples rushed to file for marriage licenses — a surge of activity that stunned both sides of the debate in a widely conservative state.“It’s like Black Friday for gay people," MickieVee Cochrane, in line Friday at the Salt Lake County Clerk’s office, told the Salt Lake Tribune.Eager couples continued to line up at county clerk’s offices before Monday’s hearing, although there were reports that at least a half-dozen counties were turning away people until the stay was resolved.“It’s almost like they’re teasing us with it. I just don’t think it’s right,” Tabitha Tuck, 31 told The Herald Journal as she unsuccessfully sought a license with her partner at the Box Elder County Clerk’s Office.“It’s not just about marrying a woman and a woman or a man and a man — it’s about being with who you fall in love with,” Tuck added.State attorneys said putting a temporary hold on same-sex marriages would at least avoid potential “irreparable harm” if, ultimately, the marriages are ruled invalid.“The only potential harm plaintiffs may suffer if a stay is granted is, at most, a delay in their ability to marry in Utah or, in the case of an out-of-state marriage, recognition of that marriage,” the state’s motion said. “Granting the stay simply preserves the status quo.”But during Monday’s court hearing, Shelby shot back at the state, asking if it was “irreparable harm” to deprive Utahns of a constitutional right, The Tribune reported.Utah lawyer Philip Lott repeated the words “chaotic situation” to describe what has been happening in Utah since clerks started allowing gay weddings. He urged the judge to “take a more orderly approach than the current frenzy.”“Utah should be allowed to follow its Democratically chosen definition of marriage,” he said of the 2004 gay marriage ban.Lott said the state was disappointed with Shelby’s latest ruling and will continue its legal battle.Peggy Tomsic, the lawyer for the same-sex couples who brought the case, called gay marriage the civil rights movement of this generation and said it was the new law of the land in Utah.“The cloud of confusion that the state talks about is only their minds,” she said.Tomsic said she was relieved that Shelby stuck to his ruling and avoided being pressured by a moral or political majority in the state.“It’s awfully easy to get caught up in the emotion and do a kneejerk reaction,” Tomsic said outside the courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City. “Fortunately, we have a judge who takes his oath of office seriously.”Utah Gov. Gary Herbert advised county clerks to check with their attorneys if they were unsure how to proceed during the state’s appeal.Herbert, a Republican, has vowed to protect “traditional marriage.” He called Shelby, an appointee of President Obama, an “activist federal judge attempting to override the will of the people of Utah.”For now, a state considered as one of the most conservative in the nation has joined the likes of California and New York to become the 18th state where same-sex couples can legally wed.Utah is home to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was one of the leading forces behind California’s short-lived ban on same-sex marriage.“We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court,” the church said in a statement.NBC News' Pete Williams and The Associated Press contributed to this report.Related:Gay marriage catches conservative Utah off guardJudge strikes down Utah's same-sex marriage banThis story was originally published on Mon Dec 23, 2013 10:33 AM EST

Ohio must recognize gay marriages on death certificates: Judge

   Glenn Hartong / Cincinnati Enquirer via AP fileJim Obergefell, left and John Arthur, right, are married by officiant Paulette Roberts, rear center, in a plane on the tarmac at Baltimore/Washington International Airport in Glen Burnie, Md., in July.By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC NewsA federal judge ruled on Monday that Ohio must acknowledge same-sex marriages on death certificates and went further in his decision to say that lower courts were now applying the recent historic Supreme Court decision striking down the federal ban on recognition of such unions.The decision came just hours before a federal judge in Utah denied a stay to his earlier ruling knocking down that state’s same-sex marriage ban, saying it denied gay couples equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. That ruling also relied heavily on the Supreme Court case, which struck down Section 3 of DOMA, or the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, in June.“This conclusion flows from the Windsor (DOMA) decision of the United States Supreme Court this past summer, which held that the federal government cannot refuse to recognize a valid same-sex marriage,” wrote Judge Timothy S. Black of the US District Court of the Southern District of Ohio, who was nominated to the post by President Barack Obama.“And now it is just as Justice (Antonin) Scalia predicted,” he continued, of the question posed by one of the Supreme Court justices on how far the DOMA decision would reach. “The lower courts are applying the Supreme Court’s decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot – i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.”He added: "Once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot summarily take your marriage away."The Ohio case was brought by attorneys for a longtime Cincinnati couple, James Obergefell and John Arthur, whose July 11, 2013 wedding on a tarmac in Maryland — where gay marriage is legal — made international headlines.Arthur, who was suffering from ALS, died on Oct. 22. That was when the marriage of the couple, who had been together since 1992, was ordered recognized by the court on Arthur’s death certificate.In recent months, four states have recognized same-sex marriage, bringing to 17 (excluding Utah) the number of states that allow gays and lesbians to wed. The District of Columbia also allows such unions. Thirty-three states prohibit it through state laws or constitutional amendments, known as state DOMAs.

Federal judge strikes down key parts of Utah's polygamy law in 'Sister Wives' ruling

   Kyle Christy / TLCKody Brown (Center) with sister wives (L to R) Christine, Meri, Janelle and Robyn.A federal judge has found key parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law to be unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a polygamous family known for their reality television show.While all 50 states across the nation have laws against bigamy, prohibiting people from having multiple marriage licenses, the law went further in Utah, finding a person guilty of bigamy when a married person “purports to marry another or cohabits with another person.”But Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that the “cohabitation” provision of the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to due process. His 91-page ruling now criminalizes plural marriages only in the literal sense, through acquisition of multiple marriage licenses.The decision follows years of litigation in a case brought forth by Kody Brown, a star of the TLC reality television show “The Sister Wives,” which chronicles the lives of Brown, his four wives and their 17 children. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, a fundamentalist church that shares historical roots with Mormonism and believes that polygamy is a core religious practice.The Brown family does not have multiple marriage licenses, with only one recorded marriage license between Kody Brown and his wife, Meri.“With this decision, families like the Browns can now be both plural and legal in the state of Utah,” their lawyer, Jonathan Turley, said in a post on his website.Turley said the Browns drew attention of Utah authorities because of their television series. The Brown’s filed suit in July 2011, and fled Utah for Nevada under threat of prosecution. Bigamy is punishable by up to five years in prison in Utah.Kody Brown issued a statement through Turley thanking the court for the “historical ruling.“While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs,” he said in the statement. “Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.”Judge Waddoups acknowledged in his decision that the ruling was not easy.“The proper outcome of this issue has weighed heavily on the court for many months as it has examined, analyzed, and re-analyzed the numerous legal, practical, moral and ethical considerations and implications of today’s ruling,” he wrote.  Ultimately he ruled that the language of the law was unconstitutional because of its vagueness and “its targeted effect on specifically religious cohabitation,” therefore violating the First Amendment right to free expression of religion.Waddoups said that while “polygamy” was not a fundamental right, the issue in the case of the Brown’s was “religious cohabitation” or “a personal relationship that resembles a marriage in its intimacy but claims no legal sanction” between consenting adults. As such, the language of the law violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment designed to ensure liberty. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, fled to the Utah area in the 1800s following religious persecution. While the mainstream church abandoned polygamy in 1890 as Utah sought statehood, certain sects have broken off and continue to espouse plural marriage as a tenet of their religion.  The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. 

'Affluenza' defense: Texas judge under fire for giving rich teen probation in fatal DUI case

 A Texas teen's defense of "affluenza" helps him avoid prison time in a deadly drunk driving case. NBC's Mike Taibbi reports.The judge who handed down a sentence of probation and treatment for a wealthy North Texas teen who killed four pedestrians in a drunken driving wreck is facing public outrage and calls for her removal.Controversy surrounding the sentence has become focused on the defense's strategy which included testimony that 16-year-old Ethan Couch suffered from "affluenza" -- a diagnosis not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association which refers to an upbringing so privileged that a person is unable to discern right from wrong.See original report at NBCDFW.comOn Tuesday, Judge Jean Boyd sentenced Couch to 10 years of probation and treatment, possibly to be served at an expensive California rehab facility that would be paid for by the teen's parents. Prosecutors had sought the maximum sentence of 20 years in state custody.Boyd's decision has led to public calls for her resignation and an online petition on Change.org demanding that Gov. Rick Perry remove Boyd from the bench.Under current Texas law, the governor can remove a sitting judge from the bench with approval of two-thirds of Texas House and Senate members.Boyd, who previously announced she is retiring at the end of her term next year, declined to comment on both the sentencing decision and the calls for her removal when contacted by NBC 5.  Boyd said speaking about the situation would be unethical.The outrage over the sentencing decision is largely linked to the testimony of psychologist Gary Miller, a witness for the defense who said  Ethan Couch suffered from "affluenza," a term suggesting his parents' wealth and privilege taught him there were no consequences for bad behavior.In addition to the APA, other mental health practitioners believe that diagnosis should not have been used by the defense to justify wrongdoing.Other critics feel the sentence, and the use of the "affluenza" defense, sends a bad message about personal responsibility."I think once you're behind the wheel it doesn't matter where you're from, who you are, how famous you are, how poor, how rich, how anything ... I think when we're given a driver's license, that's a privilege and a part of that privilege has a responsibility," Jeff Miracle, with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, told NBC 5.Couch's attorneys argue that the judge's sentence will have a significant impact on the convicted teen and his life going forward.Scott Brown, Couch's lead attorney, said the teen could have been freed after two years if he had drawn the 20-year sentence. Instead, the judge "fashioned a sentence that could have him under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years," he told the Star-Telegram."And if Ethan doesn't do what he's supposed to do, if he has one misstep at all, then this judge or an adult judge when he's transferred can then incarcerate him in prison," Brown said. "He's taken away from his family, he's taken away from all the things that he's been given."

Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

 Brennan Linsley / AP fileDave Mullins, right, sits for a portrait with his husband Charlie Craig, in Denver. By Ivan Moreno, The Associated PressA baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday. The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage." The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.  Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake in July 2012, but when Phillips found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple away, according to the complaint.  Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said the judge's order puts Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith. "He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," she said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for." The Civil Rights Commission is expected to certify the judge's order next week. Phillips can appeal the judge's order, and Martin said they're considering their next steps. Mullins said he and Craig are "ecstatic." "To a certain extent, though, I don't think that this is necessarily a surprise," he said. "We thought it was pretty clear cut that he had discriminated against us." Mullins said he hopes the "decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado." A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony. Colorado has a constitutional ban against gay marriage but allows civil unions. The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses. "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Judge Spencer said in his written order. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are." ACLU attorney Amanda Goad said no one is asking Phillips to change his religious beliefs. "But treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination, plain and simple," she said. 

Soldier linked to sex assaults can blame identical twin, judge rules

aBy Simon Moya-Smith, Staff Writer, NBC NewsA Fort Carson, Colo., officer suspected of sexually assaulting three young females and luring a total of 11 into his car can blame his twin brother at trial, a judge in Colorado Springs ruled Friday. Colorado Springs Police via APThis booking photo released by the Colorado Springs Police Department shows Army 1st Lt. Aaron G. Lucas, of Alabama.First Lieutenant Aaron Lucas, 32, is linked by DNA to a string of sexual assaults that occurred in Colorado, Alabama and Texas, the Colorado Spring Gazette reported.Fourth Judicial District Judge David Shakes said it would be "inappropriate" to prohibit Lucas' attorneys from presenting his identical twin, Brian Frederick Lucas, as an alternate suspect since the pair share DNA.Shakes also referred to evidence that both Aaron Lucas and Brian Lucas drive a black Acura sedan, similar to the one described by a young girl who was sexually assaulted in Madison, Ala., in 2007 — a crime that Aaron is suspected of committing.A DNA test also linked Lucas to an 8-year-old girl's abduction in Colorado Springs. His DNA also matched biological material recovered from an unsolved Alabama case and another attack on a young girl in Texarkana, Tex., in 2009, the Gazette reported.The judge also said Lucas' attorneys can suggest a third man from Colorado Springs as the possible suspect in some of the local crimes, reported the Gazette. Lucas' trial is slated to begin in January, 2014.