This week the United State Supreme Court will hear augments for the repeal of Prop 8 and DOMA. Watch live coverage here on C-Span.
- Supreme Court Oral Argument on Same-Sex Marriage: Watch at 1pm (ET) on C-SPAN
- Lawyers Respond to Oral Argument: Live at 11:30am (ET)
Justice Kennedy Will Likely Vote To Strike Down DOMA, Let’s Just Hope No One Joins His Opinion
By Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Mar 27, 2013 at 4:00 pm
WASHINGTON DC — The clearest sign that a majority of the Court believes the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional is how tenaciously three of the most conservative justices fought to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on its constitutionality in the first place. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Alito fought tooth and nail to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds — an effort that is likely, if not certain, to fail. Most of the left-of-center bloc appeared skeptical of the conservatives’ theory, and Justice Kennedy at one point stated that it “seems to me there’s injury here” sufficient to justify the Court hearing the case. Kennedy did make a pointed comparison between President Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA and President Bush’s infamous signing statements, but this is more likely a gratuitous swipe at the President, than a sign that Kennedy will ultimately vote to kill the case.
Should the Court reach the merits, Kennedy left little doubt that he would vote to strike down DOMA, but not on grounds that bear any resemblance to the Constitution. DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitution’s guarantee that all persons receive the “equal protection of the laws.” Kennedy, however, largely brushed over this fact to hone in on a states’ rights argument similar to one tea partiers have used to claim Medicare is unconstitutional. In Kennedy’s words, DOMA is problematic because it runs “in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the State police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/27/1783321/justice-kennedy-will-likely-vote-to-strike-down-doma-lets-just-hope-no-one-joins-his-opinion/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=adgMeu-RG48
ANYBODY, ANYONE, ANYONE!
Edie’s Speech
Mar 27 2013 @ 2:17pm
Plaintiff Edie Windsor-83 years old, who is fighting for the federal government to recognize her marriage, spoke outside the Supreme Court after oral arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J8q14EuWNY&feature=player_embedded
Rob Tisinai watched her speak:
What moved me most was her description of how she’d been closeted for so many years, and how she was so grateful today for the kindness in how the Justices treated her.
She was grateful for their kindness
Take a moment to realize that for most of her life, this kindness — this civility and dignity and respect — was something she and Thea had no reason to expect. It breaks my heart with regret at what these women had to live through, and it breaks my heart with joy that this heroine has never let it overcome her. Edie Windsor has overcome, no matter what the Court decides.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/27/the-long-journey-of-edie-windsor/
Supreme Court appears skeptical of DOMA
By Steve Benen
Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:25 PM EDT
After yesterday’s Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage rights and California’s Prop 8, court watchers and those on hand for the proceedings seemed reluctant to predict the outcome. It’s not just that speculation based solely on oral arguments is inherently risky, but also that real uncertainty hangs over the case.
That seems far less true 24 hours later. NBC’s Pete Williams told viewers this afternoon, “Again with the caveat, it’s always risky to predict, it does seem that there are at least five votes on the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.” Jeffrey Toobin added, “DOMA is in trouble.”
The New York Times report noted that Justice Kennedy “joined the four liberals in posing skeptical questions.”
“The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage,” Justice Kennedy said during oral arguments, suggesting that the question should be left to the states. He disagreed with the contention that the federal law simply created a single definition for federal purposes, noting that same-sex couples are not treated the same as other married couples. “It’s not really uniformity,” he said.
Justice Kennedy’s point echoed one made by his more liberal colleagues. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the federal law effectively created a two-tiered system of marriage. “There are two kinds of marriage,” she said. “Full marriage and the skim-milk marriage.”
Ouch.
——————————————————————————–
Indeed, the center-left justices made no effort to hide their DOMA skepticism.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/27/17488253-supreme-court-appears-skeptical-of-doma?lite
BWA HA HA HA The Lady Justices are not taking any SHYT off these mofos.
AdamSerwer @AdamSerwer
Paul Clement defended DOMA by invoking fed recognition of black marriages in reconstruction South.
Arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act at the Supreme Court have ended after nearly two hours.
The federal law means federal tax, Social Security, pension and bankruptcy benefits, and family medical leave protections do not apply to gay and lesbian couples.
Today’s session comes a day after the court heard arguments over California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage for that state as being between only a man and a woman. The overriding question in that case is whether the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law prevents states from defining marriage.
The justices are expected to rule on the cases by mid-June.
March 27, 2013
SCALIA FURIOUS HE HAS TO HEAR ABOUT GAY COUPLES ALL WEEK
Posted by Andy Borowitz
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an outburst that shocked many onlookers at the Supreme Court today, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it made him “angry beyond belief” that he had to listen to people talking about gay couples all week.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether it was appropriate for the Court to hear a case about same-sex marriage at this time, Mr. Scalia stunned observers with an emotional outburst.
“O.K., could we just stop talking about this stuff right now?” Justice Scalia snapped at Justice Kennedy. “I’ve told you all how I feel about this topic, and I don’t understand why we’re going on and on about it unless you all hate me.”
As the courtroom froze in dead silence, Justice Scalia seemed to gather steam, shouting, “For two days, it’s been gay this, gay that. You’re all just talking about this stuff as if it’s the most normal thing in the world. Well, it’s not, O.K.? It’s weird and it’s wrong. And just talking about it like it’s O.K. and whatnot is making me angry beyond belief.”
As the other justices averted their eyes, Justice Scalia broke down, sobbing that he wished “things were normal, the way they used to be.”
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an outburst that shocked many onlookers at the Supreme Court today, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it made him “angry beyond belief” that he had to listen to people talking about gay couples all week.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether it was appropriate for the Court to hear a case about same-sex marriage at this time, Mr. Scalia stunned observers with an emotional outburst.
“O.K., could we just stop talking about this stuff right now?” Justice Scalia snapped at Justice Kennedy. “I’ve told you all how I feel about this topic, and I don’t understand why we’re going on and on about it unless you all hate me.”
As the courtroom froze in dead silence, Justice Scalia seemed to gather steam, shouting, “For two days, it’s been gay this, gay that. You’re all just talking about this stuff as if it’s the most normal thing in the world. Well, it’s not, O.K.? It’s weird and it’s wrong. And just talking about it like it’s O.K. and whatnot is making me angry beyond belief.”
As the other justices averted their eyes, Justice Scalia broke down, sobbing that he wished “things were normal, the way they used to be.”
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/scalia-furious-he-has-to-hear-about-gay-couples-all-week.html#ixzz2OksVAAMH
This clip was poignant and funny. Nobody did it like the Golden Girls.
How Obama changed the gay marriage debate
Opinion
by Perry Bacon Jr. | March 26, 2013 at 8:57 AM
When President Obama announced his support for gay marriage last May, it wasn’t the boldest political move. He had previously declared his position on the issue “evolving,” a non-answer that annoyed both his supporters and critics. And it seemed the president had not really intended to take a real position but was forced to after Vice President Joe Biden voiced his own support for gay marriage.
But now, as the Supreme Court considers two cases on gay marriage, it’s clear Obama’s words profoundly changed the gay marriage debate. His support for gay marriage immediately shifted opinion in one of the last parts of the Democratic base resistant to gay unions: African-Americans.
While polls differ on the exact level of black support for gay marriage, almost half of African-Americans in Maryland backed a provision allowing gay marriages there last fall, and opposition to gay marriage has dipped below 50 percent among blacks nationally, according to the Pew Research Center. And Obama’s statement made it easier for influential African-American organizations, such as the NAACP, also to voice their support for gay marriage, as well as professional athletes, even if some influential pastors in many black communities still opposed it.
Obama’s words also caused a profound shift among his fellow politicians. It had always been expected Obama would declare his support for gay marriage, but in 2013 or 2014, after he had won re-election by focusing on other issues. Instead, the president illustrated backing gay marriage was not politically risky, declaring his support for gay unions and then winning not just in liberal states like California and New York but in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and other places with sizable blocs of conservatives and religious voters who some thought would turn out in droves to defeat a candidate who supported gay marriage.
It’s no accident Democratic presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and even Republicans such as Ohio Sen. Rob Portman are now declaring their support for gay marriage, as Obama has shown them that the majority of Americans are comfortable backing a politician with that stance. Democratic activists can now tell virtually any politician outside of the Deep South, where Obama struggled, that supporting gay marriage is not a political risk.
http://thegrio.com/2013/03/26/how-obama-changed-the-gay-marriage-debate/
Supreme Dissonance
27Mar2013
Author: J. Christian Watts
On one hand – the Supremes are about to erase a legacy of homophobia and hate that has been as pronounced and abundant as anything we’ve seen in generations. Prop 8, a bigoted expansion of DOMA, which itself was a bigoted expansion and codification of homophobia, gave every appearance of falling yesterday before the Justices, taking with it almost all other state laws that ban gay marriage… or not. DOMA may survive the day but a ruling ending prop 8 opens the door to many other challenges effectively ending bigotry in the name of marriage and the path to full citizenship for LGBT everywhere. Amen.
But this suddenly “progressive” Court, hell bent on doing the right thing, is the same one that is going to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in a case brought by a county in Alabama that tried to poll tax black voters in new and creative ways 200 plus times in the last few years. They can’t seem to see the civil rights for black and brown when it comes to voting. Scalia thinks it is a racial entitlement to not wait all day in the heat or rain in order to vote.
This Court that our LGBT brothers and sisters are relying on for Justice and equity is the same one that is going to, in the next little bit, rule on two Affirmative Action cases. The result of their predictable rulings will be, essentially, not being happy baring Affirmative Action in the flawed Texas case the Supremes have expanded the ask, expanded what the Plaintiff wants and will in fact rule that Affirmative Action is banned in every case.
Wow.
So what can we take from the tale of two Supreme Court Civil Rights perspectives? Wealthy, well-funded white plaintiffs in LGBT cases finally get a hearing that favors them, at a time when black and brown people getting justice in any way, in any form from the court, seems to make the 5 conservatives on the court skin crawl? I hope LGBT win, they need it, and they deserve it. But while we discuss and think about victory, let’s remember that this court, one of the most racially biased since the Dred Scott Court, is an absurdist vehicle for civil rights discussion and justice. They are the least just and least civil rights oriented Court in generations.
Peace,
J.
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2013/03/supreme-dissonance/
Justice Sotomayor = WISE LATINA!
All Those Straight Supporters
Mar 26 2013 @ 5:17pm
A reader writes:
I’m sure you’re getting a lot a mail today regarding the Supreme Court oral arguments, but thought I would share an observation. I’m a 50+ gay female. I’ve been in a solid relationship for over 10 years. We’ve taken every legal step we can to protect ourselves (wills, Powers of Attorney, etc). We have super supportive families and friends.
However, I can honestly say that the idea of marrying my partner – legally – has never really occurred to me. It’s just not something that I dreamed about or wished for. I guess I’ve just moved through life thinking, “It’s not possible, so why even think about it?” I’ve followed the court cases cautiously and even a little fearfully.
But then today I checked out my Facebook feed and see update after update of friends changing their profile pictures to red equal-sign logos, and posts about wearing red, and posts on hearing updates. Even my young niece changed her profile pic to a red logo.
And then it hit me like a ton of bricks: the majority of folks who made these updates and posts are straight! In my circle, the biggest champions of marriage equality have been my straight friends. I am somewhat ashamed that others are fighting and believing in something for me that I never fought myself – merely for the reason that I just never thought it was possible. To be sitting here on such a precipice, with all of their support, is amazingly humbling.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/
Yes; Andy in your CIRCLE, that’s probably true. And the majority of in my circle who support gay marriage are straight too and BLACK. We know what it’s like to be discriminated against, to be treated as LESS THAN, simply for the color of our skin. We’ve always had to FIGHT for equal rights.
But sadly, some white gay folks are just in it for themselves. When that Prop 8 bill passed in 2008, we really got to see the ugliness of GAY WHITE PRIVILEGE.
Like SG2 says, where are these folks when state after state tried to pass thos VOTER SUPPRESSION laws to disinfranchise BLACKS, college students, the elderly? I’ll tell you where; they were whining and complaining about DADT & DOMA, and what Obama should be doing to get them therir rights, while we were out here defending RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLE!
If the decision to uphold Prop 8 gets blamed on BLACK folks….. The only black that should get the blame is Clarence Thomas; just saying..
Who Won The Argument?
MAR 26 2013 @ 4:21PM
As we know, it’s foolish to predict a decision based on oral arguments [PDF]. So I won’t. But since I’ve been arguing this question most of my adult life, I figured it would make sense to see who I think got the better of the case. Some of the issues are beyond my skill-set: I’m not qualified to answer on the somewhat esoteric issue of standing – except that it is clearly at issue here and may give a deadlocked court a way out.
This exchange was the most clarifying on that matter:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/
Bandwagon effect kicks in on marriage rights
By Steve Benen
–Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:31 AM EDT
Elected policymakers like to do smart and popular things, but they don’t like to be the last one to do a smart and popular thing, which is how bandwagon effects begin — politicians see their colleagues do the right thing, and they hurry to join the club before it’s too late.
Consider the last week in Democratic politics. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed marriage equality last Monday, and by the weekend, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri was on board, too. Yesterday afternoon, Sen. Mark Warner (D) of Virginia announced on Facebook that he supports marriage equality “because it is the fair and right thing to do.”
And by the end of the day, the bandwagon had a new member.*
After remaining mum on the subject when asked about it last week, Sen. Mark Begich’s office issued a statement Monday night from the senator supporting marriage equality.
“I believe that same sex couples should be able to marry and should have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other married couple,” the Alaskan senator said in what appears to be his first direct statement on the subject.
“Government should keep out of individuals’ personal lives — if someone wants to marry someone they love, they should be able to. Alaskans are fed up with government intrusion into our private lives, our daily business, and in the way we manage our resources and economy,” he continued.
That appears to bring the new total of sitting senators who support marriage equality to 44 — 43 Democrats and one Republican.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/26/17471952-bandwagon-effect-kicks-in-on-marriage-rights?lite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vLgTL9Zu1OM
Supreme Court appears split on Prop. 8, broad gay marriage ruling
By Noam N. Levey and David G. Savage
March 26, 2013, 9:30 a.m.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded closely split on gay marriage Tuesday, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested the court should strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling broadly on the issue.
Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point.
His comments suggested that the court’s four most conservative justices voted to hear the California case. Had the justices turned down the appeal, as Kennedy suggested, Proposition 8 would have been struck down on the grounds of a narrow ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Read on
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling-20130326,0,1511924.story
AUDIO: Hollingsworth v. Perry
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144
Arguments on California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, have ended at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The justices heard arguments for about one hour and 20 minutes in the appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The high court is not expected to issue a ruling until June.
On Wednesday, the court will hear arguments in another case involving same-sex marriage, the appeal of lower court decisions that struck down provisions in the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts federal benefits to same-sex couples.