Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Edited to add: they got bumped from tonight's broadcast. They're hoping it will be run tomorrow night.

Big day the next two days. ��I'm anxious. I'm not certain all of the public and political declarations of support for marriage equality is indication that the court will rule in our favour on either case. Scalia is a bastard.
And he has a powerful whip on that court.

But I'm hoping!

There are several ways the court can go, including the ruling that the Proponents of Prop 8 were not harmed by the decisions in California declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional, and Prop 8 would be void. This is the option I personally do not want (but believe will happen), as it changes nothing for anyone except us.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

There are several ways the court can go, including the ruling that the Proponents of Prop 8 were not harmed by the decisions in California declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional, and Prop 8 would be void. This is the option I personally do not want (but believe will happen), as it changes nothing for anyone except us.

I was reading briefly (as I'm on my break), that the court indicated that they will probably not touch on the broader issue of same sex marriage for all, and will be (as I said above) limited to affecting California (Prop 8) one way or another.

Let's hope I'm wrong.

[Rockinonahigh]

I haven't posted hear but I shure have read a fue post that u all have put on hear.I do hope that things go our way,even if its a little bit to get the wheels in motion.But,I think the courts will take the easyest way out,I hope not but I think they will.To bad the high court dose us this way,I have been told by someone who I know that works in D.C. that as long as it's not anything that will effect them..who cares.To bad,I hope i'm wrong.

[thedivahrrrself]

Today, change your profile picture to this to show your support for marriage equality.

[JustBeingMe]

An unprecedented Supreme Court case that advocates on both sides hoped might settle the question of gay marriage once and for all could be reduced to a procedural issue.
Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism in oral arguments Tuesday that the proponents of California's gay marriage ban, called Proposition 8, have the legal right to defend the ban in court. Several of the justices closely questioned the attorneys in the landmark case over the procedural legal issue, called standing, suggesting they may be poised to throw the case out without significantly addressing the broader issue of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.
The 2008 voter-approved gay marriage ban has been the target of lawsuits for four years, challenged by gay couples who say it discriminates against them based on their sexual orientation. Since it passed, public opinion on gay marriage has shifted rapidly in the country, with a slight majority for the first time now saying they believe gay couples should be allowed to wed, and two lower courts have struck Prop 8 down as discriminatory. Still, the vast majority of states outlaw gay marriage.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's conservative-leaning swing vote and the author of two major decisions in favor of gay rights, appeared to be on the fence in the controversial case. Early in the arguments, he suggested that the estimated 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California might be harmed by their parents' inability to marry. "They want their parents to have full recognition and full status," Kennedy said. "The voice of these children is important in this case."
Later in the oral arguments, however, Kennedy said he wondered whether the case should have been granted at all, again mentioning the standing issue.
"You're really asking for us to go into uncharted waters," Kennedy said, adding that there's a "substantial question" over whether Prop 8's defenders have the standing to bring suit.
Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world.
Kennedy also lamented that research into how same-sex couples and their children fare is new. “We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history,” he said.
The standing issue has dogged supporters of Prop 8 since former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's attorney general declined to appeal a lower court's decision striking down the ban. A coalition of people who helped place Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place stepped up to defend the ban in court without financial help from the state. That group must prove they would experience a direct injury if Prop 8 is struck down in order to have standing to appeal.
The state Supreme Court in California ruled that the coalition had standing to pursue the case, but justices from both the liberal and conservative wings of the court appeared skeptical of that ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was appropriate for supporters of a ballot initiative to defend it in court, rather than the state itself. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the court had never "allowed anything like it" in the past.

If the justices decide to throw out the case on standing, the lower court's decision allowing gay marriage will most likely be the law of the land in California.
Even if the justices get past the standing hurdle, it's unclear whether they would issue a broad ruling affirming gay marriage. That depends on Kennedy, who would have to break with his conservative colleagues to give the liberals a majority in favor of gay marriage.
The Court's four more liberal justices, along with swing justice Kennedy, closely questioned the Prop 8 defenders' attorney about why the government has a reason to exclude gay people from marriage.
Justice Elena Kagan asked attorney Charles Cooper to explain how allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt heterosexual marriage. Cooper replied that he did not think that was the question at hand in the case, at which point Kennedy interjected and asked if he was "conceding the point" that gay marriage does not cause harm. Cooper answered that there may be unforeseen consequences of broadening the "age-old, bedrock" institution of marriage to include gay people.
But even though Kennedy appeared skeptical of the argument that the government has a reason to deny same-sex couples marriage, he also expressed frustration with the quality of the case, mentioning both the standing issue and some of the odder legal arguments advanced by the lower courts. Kennedy criticized the Ninth Circuit of Appeals decision striking down Prop 8 narrowly in a way that only affected California, calling it an "odd rationale." The judges in that case said California was discriminating against gay couples by providing them with all the legal benefits of marriage minus the name. Kennedy and other justices said such reasoning appears to punish states that want to offer gay couples more rights while leaving untouched the many states that provide no legal recognition whatsoever to these couples.
Many legal experts believe that Kennedy, because of his legacy of supporting gay rights on the bench, will not vote to uphold Prop 8. But the oral arguments do not give many hints as to how he will proceed. He may join with the four liberals to write a narrower opinion striking down Prop 8 that finds a different line of argument from the Ninth Circuit's, or they may reject the case on standing, which would effectively legalize gay marriage in California while deferring the larger question of gay marriage for another time.
A decision is not expected until June.

[Sparkle]

cbsn.ws/11JmuEZ

My dear friends & godchild talking about what Prop 8 means to/for them.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Supreme Court DOMA Case: Justices Sounded Skeptical Of Law's Constitutionality, Purpose


WASHINGTON -- A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday morning appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as between a man and a woman. Whether the justices believe they have the power to make any decision in this case, however, remained murky.

It was the second day in a row that the high court heard arguments dealing with same-sex marriage. At issue Wednesday in United States v. Windsor was whether it was constitutional for the U.S. government to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that had been recognized by the states.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who said Tuesday that the children of same-sex couples “want their parents to have full recognition and legal status,” seemed troubled by the fact that DOMA refuses to recognize even those same-sex unions that are already recognized by states.

"When the federal government has 1,100 laws, which means in our society the federal government is intertwined with citizens' day-to-day lives," Kennedy said, then Congress is doing more than simply ensuring a uniform definition of marriage.

DOMA was only helping states, Kennedy said, “if they do what we want them to do.” He pointed out to Paul Clement, the lawyer defending DOMA, that the law applied to states “where voters have decided” to legalize same-sex marriage and stated that he believed there was injury to same-sex couples whose marriages were not recognized by the federal government.

Section 3 of DOMA, at issue in Wednesday morning's case, says "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of "any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States."

Plaintiff Edie Windsor, 83, brought suit against the federal government after the Internal Revenue Service cited DOMA in denying her a refund for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes she paid following the 2009 death of Thea Spyer, her partner for over 40 years. Windsor and Spyer had married in Canada in 2007, but resided in New York. Because Windsor would have been eligible for an estate tax exemption had Spyer been a man, she argues that DOMA's Section 3 violates her equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.




On this point, Windsor had a friend in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said that DOMA created "two types of marriage," likening same-sex marriage in the states to the "skim milk" version of straight unions.

Justice Kennedy also showed hostility to DOMA. But like his position in the Proposition 8 oral arguments Tuesday, he appeared reluctant to rule on equal protection grounds. Instead, the question for him was "whether or not the federal government under our federalism scheme has the authority to regulate marriage."

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration on the merits of the case, avoided Kennedy's question, choosing instead to emphasize Congress' discriminatory purpose in enacting DOMA in 1996.

The law "is not called Federal Uniform Definition of Marriage Act," he said. "It's called the Defense of Marriage Act."

Justice Elena Kagan pushed a similar point. She told Clement, who was defending DOMA on behalf of the House of Representatives' Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, "that maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity" in the definition of marriage. Suggesting the law was "infected with prejudice, fear, spite, and animus," Kagan read a portion of the House Report, which said DOMA was meant to reflect Congress' "collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."

Perhaps key to the justices' analysis of the case is whether to regard laws that single out gays and lesbians with what's called "heightened scrutiny" -- a level of review now used to strike down measures that single out politically disfavored and less powerful groups.

On this point, Chief Justice John Roberts focused in on the “sea change” in public opinion on the question of same-sex marriage. How did that “sea change” come about, he asked, unless gay and lesbian Americans had amassed significant political power. Roberts said it seemed to him that politicians were “falling over themselves” to endorse gay marriage.

Roberts also wondered why, if President Barack Obama believes DOMA is unconstitutional, he continues to enforce it. “I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” the chief said. Kennedy chimed in later, saying he didn’t “understand why they continue to enforce” DOMA.

Clement said that if 10 years from now, there were only nine states left that didn’t have gay marriage, the federal government might be fully entitled to force the remaining states to recognize such unions.

Judging from Wednesday's first 50 minutes of oral arguments, however, the case may instead be decided on whether the justices have the power to hear the case at all.

In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit both declared DOMA unconstitutional. The Obama administration agrees with them.

Chief Justice Roberts asked Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, whether there was "any case where all parties agreed with the decision below," but a court "nonetheless upheld" its ability to hear the case.

The chief's question about legal standing reflects DOMA's long, strange trip to this point. A bipartisan piece of legislation, it was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, who now believes it should be overturned.

In 2010, a Department of Justice official told reporters that defending DOMA was “difficult” for the Obama administration, while Attorney General Eric Holder told D.C. law students that the DOJ “has a responsibility to defend those statues that the Congress has passed if there is an argument that can be made to defend those statutes."

But things changed in 2011, when Holder announced that the DOJ would no longer defend DOMA. Holder was not in the courtroom on Wednesday, but Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole and Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, who runs the DOJ's Civil Division, were in attendance on behalf of the department.

After the DOJ backed off from defending the law, House Republicans stepped in. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group hired Clement, George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, to defend the law on behalf of the federal government.

Clement faced difficult questioning Wednesday from the Supreme Court's liberal wing on why the House had any legally recognizable interest in representing a position the executive has abandoned.

"How is this case any different from enforcing general powers of the United States," Justice Stephen Breyer asked