Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by Nadeest

I just saw this link on my Facebook page, from the Huffington Post, and wanted to share this information. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...?ir=Gay+Voices

Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Argue Special DOMA Question

By JESSE J. HOLLAND 12/11/12 02:54 PM ET EST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday invited a Massachusetts lawyer to come argue that the justices cannot rule on one of the gay marriage questions it had planned to decide next year.

The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.

The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont – and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.

But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.

So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."

__________________________________________________ ____________


I am unclear on this. The Supreme Court is asking Jackson to argue that the Supreme Court Justices should stay out of arguing that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples?

Then the article gones on to say because "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case."

What does this last paragraph mean? What is it saying? What is the agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional?


Thanks for posting the Link Nadeest.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Greyson

Supreme Court Asks Lawyer To Argue Special DOMA Question

By JESSE J. HOLLAND 12/11/12 02:54 PM ET EST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday invited a Massachusetts lawyer to come argue that the justices cannot rule on one of the gay marriage questions it had planned to decide next year.

The court asked lawyer Vicki C. Jackson of Cambridge to join the gay marriage arguments this spring, but she won't be arguing whether it's legal for governments to treat gay Americans differently in issues of marriage. Instead, at the court's invitation, Jackson will be arguing that it's improper for the Supreme Court to even consider making a ruling on a federal law that treats gay married couples differently from heterosexual married couples.

The high court will be hearing two gay marriage arguments: first, whether California's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex is constitutional. The second question is the one Jackson will argue that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Maine, Maryland, Washington state, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont – and the nation's capital, the District of Columbia.

But a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment.

So far, four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. Last year, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law, but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

Jackson was asked by the court to argue "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case." She will also argue that House Republicans cannot substitute themselves for the Justice Department and therefore they lack "standing in this case."

__________________________________________________ ____________


I am unclear on this. The Supreme Court is asking Jackson to argue that the Supreme Court Justices should stay out of arguing that justices should stay out of: the constitutionality of a federal law that denies to gay couple who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples?

Then the article gones on to say because "that the Executive Branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this court of jurisdiction to decide this case."

What does this last paragraph mean? What is it saying? What is the agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional?


Thanks for posting the Link Nadeest.

I'm not lawyer but it seems logical that if a case has been appealed up to the Supreme Court and there is a question about a law's constitutionality then this is the appropriate venue for this question to be answered..the court has the power to nullify or empower it ie obamacare ..i hope there is a lawyer among us who can answer

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

I'm not lawyer but it seems logical that if a case has been appealed up to the Supreme Court and there is a question about a law's constitutionality then this is the appropriate venue for this question to be answered..the court has the power to nullify or empower it ie obamacare ..i hope there is a lawyer among us who can answer

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Greyson

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

It's a great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a very conservative court..now why would they want to consider it now?..

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by Greyson

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

It's a great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a very conservative court..now why would they want to consider it now?..

I just read this piece in the NY Times today. It explains what the Supreme Court is doing in regards to Same Sex Marriage two court cases it will be looking at. I will need to read it again but for a layperson such as myself, it really helps clear up some of the above questions.

I gather that "Standing" is one of the issues to be addressed and there is also some variation of States Rights in relation to Federal Jurisdiction. I hope it may offer some understanding to others here in our community.
__________________________________________________ ___________





Standing and Delivering

December 12, 2012
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Is it heretical of me, or merely quirky, to find myself nearly as fascinated by the procedural game the Supreme Court is playing in the same-sex marriage cases as I am by the underlying merits of the two appeals the court has agreed to decide?

After all, same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and public opinion on the issue is evolving rapidly in other parts of the country, with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court. On the other hand, the procedural minefield the court has laid around these cases may hold implications reaching well beyond the domain of gay rights — for the relationship of states to their citizens and for the balance of power between the president and Congress.



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...it_ty_20121213

[wolfsgirl]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...r-january-vote

Maybe Illinois will be state 10.

After counting heads and consulting with legislative leaders, the chief sponsors of a bill to permit same-sex couples to get married in the state disclosed this morning that they intend to push for a vote in the General Assembly's lame-duck session, which will occur over two weeks just after New Year's.

[Metro]

http://tinyurl.com/c89yw4y