E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Supreme Court's decision to review two landmark cases that deal with same-sex marriage could determine the future of gay rights in all 50 states. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
New in this version: Adds legal analysis
Updated at 6:50 p.m. ET: The Supreme Court's announcement Friday that it will take up two same-sex marriage cases this term gave advocates on both sides something to cheer about.
The court picked cases involving two measures that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law, and California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative approved by state voters in 2008.
Nearly two decades of legal skirmishing over the question has left supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage alike hoping for clarity from the Supreme Court, which has never before considered the topic.
"We are delighted that the nation's highest court will decide whether to uphold the will of more than 7 million Californians who voted to preserve the unique definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman," said Andy Pugno, general counsel of Protect Marriage, which sponsored Proposition 8 and petitioned the court for a hearing after it was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court.
US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue
"Arguing this case before the Supreme Court finally gives us a chance at a fair hearing, something that hasn't been afforded to the people since we began this fight," Pugno said.
At the same time, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who opposed enactment of the initiative, also welcomed the news, saying that "for justice to prevail, Proposition 8 must be invalidated so that gay and lesbian families are finally treated with equality and dignity."
Rick Jacobs, founder of Courage Campaign, a California group that campaigned vigorously against Proposition 8, said the Supreme Court hearing would hasten the day when the law would "catch up with the American public."
Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases: Your view
"Sooner than later, no one will care about loving gay and lesbian couples marrying any more than they care about their straight counterparts doing so," Jacobs said in a statement. "Each day of delay brings more suffering and hardship."
Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com
Shannon Stapleton / Reuters
Edith Windsor challenged the Defense of Marriage Act after she received a $363,000 estate tax bill when her spouse died in 2009.
The case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996, was brought by Edie Windsor, 83, of New York, who was assessed a $363,000 estate tax bill after Thea Spyer, her partner of 44 years, died in 2009.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, made it illegal for the State of New York to recognize the women's marriage in Canada. If Spyer had been married to a man, the estate she left Windsor wouldn't have been liable for taxes.
"When Thea and I met nearly 50 years ago, we never could have dreamed that the story of our life together would be before the Supreme Court as an example of why gay married couples should be treated equally and not like second-class citizens," Windsor said Friday.
"While Thea is no longer alive, I know how proud she would have been to see this day," she added. "The truth is, I never expected any less from my country."
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the cases "present the Supreme Court with a monumental opportunity to affirm our Constitution's promises of liberty, equality and human dignity."
"The journey is not finished, for as long as DOMA remains intact, then true equality remains out of reach," she said. "The clock is ticking on DOMA — it's time the Supreme Court strike down DOMA and Proposition 8, once and for all."
But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group, said he was confident that the court "will recognize that DOMA is supported by numerous legitimate legislative purposes — all of which are consistent with our principles of federalism."
"The argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to redefine 'marriage' lies outside our constitutional law," Perkins said. "Additionally, we believe that the people's vote on Proposition 8 should be respected."
The court has never before waded into the highly contentious issue of same-sex marriage.
"This is a monumental action by the Supreme Court, because we know they're going to say something about gay marriage for the first time ever," said Tom Goldstein, publisher of the closely watched SCOTUSBlog. (SCOTUS is shorthand for Supreme Court of the United States.)
Michael Klarman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, said he thought it was likely that the court would invalidate DOMA.
"There is some chance the vote won't even by 5-4, as some conservative justices who don't necessarily think there is a right to same-sex marriage will be troubled by the federalism implications of Congress' defining marriage rather than deferring to the states on this issue," Klarman, author of the forthcoming "From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage," told NBC News by email.
As for the Proposition 8 case, Klarman was less willing to make a prediction, saying the justices could "reject the argument that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected, they could accept that argument or they could narrowly affirm the 9th Circuit and invalidate what California has done in a way that has no implications for any other state."
He said the last option was unlikely, which means "I would guess they will either broadly embrace a right to same-sex marriage or reject it."
Arguments are expected in March, with rulings likely by June.
More content from NBCNews.com:
Leave a Comment:
Amazing! How would marriage equality hurt spouses? Does the Heritage Foundation actually think that heterosexuals will now leave their spouses for a same-sex partner? Since many, if not most states, allow adoption by singles or gay couples, the claim that marriage equality would "deny a mother or father as a matter of policy" is nonsense.
As for the claim that it would "delink" marriage and childbearing, that happened from the moment that anyone who is incapable of reproducing, whether through age, medical condition or voluntary sterilization, was permitted to marry. One is not required for the other, and marriage equality is not going to change that fact.
Marriage equality means marriage equality for all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation. A lot of so called patriots keep beating their chests about freedom but then they take away the freedom to marry whom ever we like. It's always the same, as long as you don't rock the boat or your life style is based on christian beliefs. I have always said, religion creates hatred.
There will never be marriage equality until "Spouse A" and "Spouse B" is changed to "Co-Spouse" for both parties.
Try as you might, the definition of marriage is " a sacred union between one man and one woman".
This is the definition, from the beginning of mankind, spoken by God Almighty Himself.
The reality of two human genders should be a clue as to intent for the defining of marriages.
Children understand this, until they are confused and confounded by humanistic atheists.
This is only lost on those who hate God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible. The source of the only "hate" in these discussions is that generated toward God, and His true people, because they do not get their way. Humanistic liberals hate the idea that God exists, that He is in charge, and that He determines acceptable human behavior: right from wrong.
Try as YOU might, you cannot rewrite history. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, and same-sex marriages were legal in quite a few ancient civilizations; our own Native Americans also performed them. Religion did not involve itself in marriage until around the mid-1500s.
See my first paragraph above.
Too bad for you christo-bigots that God does not make our laws. True liberals do not hate the idea of God; what we hate are christo-bigots like you who attempt to use God and the bible to justify your hatred, ignorance, and bigotry.
It would deny a mother or a father to a child??? Hmmmm??? Jodie Foster isn't married, and she has kids. Does that mean she denied them a father? If that's all they've got, they should just put up the white flag now.
The Supreme Court will justifiably declare it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, or, as I see it, the GOP will again find itself on the wrong side of the fence. I think the only hope for the GOP is to encase some DNA in amber and hope that sometime in the future they can be revived.
Life would have been nicer without my father, it only took my mom 11 years to getaway completely, but I suppose we deserved it right? We needed a lesson, it made us stronger, we were receiving the punishment of our father's sins, blah blah.
Gay marriage only affects the people involved. Were you involved in my parent's marriage or my marriage? Nope. It doesn't concern you. No one is suggesting that the churches hold a ceremony after the couple gets their papers from the courthouse. It isn't necessary. I'm a straight woman married to a man who was married without any religious ceremonies. Marriage does not need to be held at an alter to be valid, only the government's approval makes it valid. People are being discriminated against. I was allowed to be married, but a lot of people do not have that right.
Book, chapter and verse, please?
Actually the article never truly addresses the crux of the issue: if the government (state and federal) never gave any benefits associated with being married (Estate taxes, federal taxes, state taxes rates) then any church could define anything term like they wanted. Once the government got into the business of picking winners and losers based on marriage the institution became that of the government (not of the church) and therefore not available for discrimination.
How much do you want to bet that Clarence Thomas votes against overturning the DOMA even though by his standards he would've NEVER been allowed to marry his wife (who is white) in the founding father's time....?
Carnality is the word, or sexuality. Not orientation; that implies thought or choice. the direction of someone’s interest or attitude, especially political or sexual: Biological reason for being a democrat or republican?
For the life of me I just can't understand why anyone cares what two consenting adults choose to do with each other.
What is it like going through life baffled and mystified?
Try this for starters: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." Proverbs 14.34
Herald, keep YOUR bible out of MY government.
denver bill 2 What is it like not adding anything to the conversation except a snarky pointless little comment.
Herald9 that's fine if that's what you want to live by, but why should the rest of us give any consideration to what your religion says when instituting our, not your, laws. If you don't like gay marriage don't have one and live your life as you see fit, find happiness through your own actions not what you perceive is wrong with others who in no way can, or will affect you.
Im just Sick of the double standard that America has turned itself into! Its not ok for a company, or anyone to speak out against Gay marriage and be opposed to it. The gay community says that peoples views shouldnt be should not be pushed on everyone... However the gay community is inturn shoving their belifes down everyones throat (pun intended) Why is it ok for gays to offend people by speaking out, but not ok for others to speak against them.
Offend people...by speaking out...for their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
Awesome sex joke, too. Helps everyone to see which side is actually obsessed with gay sex.
Because, Stan, they are not "shoving their belifes down everyones throat", as you so put it, they are merely asking for their constitutional rights to be affirmed and upheld. You have the right to believe their lifestyle is wrong, you do not have the right to deny them the rights afforded by the law of the land.
lol, the irony of whining about a "double standard"...when the real double standard is denying rights to others.
The double standard is when someone's freedom of speech limits the expression of someone else's freedom of speech. Last I checked, gay marriage doesn't mean you have to stop believing what you do, preaching what you do, or feeling what you do. It just means you can't use your feelings to justify limiting others.
Al they want Stan is the same rights that you enjoy given by the government.
As a straight man I want the scotus to get this bi-bull book talk as far away as possible I deff dont want just like the founders of our free country there is no mistake No broken church No Bi-bull just freedom that means no fake bibles or any other fiction up n here and U churchees can go go well go make cake or icing or muffffinz or curle up with fifty shades of grya just go get scram
By this logic, colored individuals who spoke out 40+ years ago were shoving their beliefs down America's throat.
Poor logic. But that generally applies to anyone against gay marriage. I've had exactly one discussion with any individual about gay marriage in which the individual made a case for gay marriage that I could see stand up in the SCOTUS.
Gays are not forcing their beliefs or their way of life on others, they just want to be treated equally. It is homophobes who are denying gays their rights and forcing them to live in the shadows. For all those religious fanatics, as you keep saying, we are all GODS creatures so stop judging.
please give an example of how gay american citizens are "shoving" their views on you? just one? oh that they dare have the audacity to demand equality and justice? like those nasty blacks did in the 60's and women have and the disabled? it is YOU who are shoving YOUR lifestyle down everyone else's throat (pun intended) but with your bigoted eyes you can't see that.
This cartoon explains where bigots like Stan are coming from:
http://s1172.beta.photobucket.com/user/dmillerparker/media/glbt-religious-freedom.jpg.html
Gays are denying Stan his 1st amendment right to persecute them.
Where in the constitution does it say having sex is a right? I must have missed that one in civics class.
Sex and marriage is not synonymous, and marriage is a right.
Doesn't say that in there either.
No, bob, it doesn't say that marriage is a right in the Constitution, nor does it say that we have a right to privacy -- but the Supreme Court has found that both of those are inherent rights that we have under the 14th Amendment.
Archaic laws which excluded Indians, blacks, probably Chinese and other breeds of homo sapiens. Reconstruction laws like the 13 amendment which allows slavery still to this day. Why do you feel you should have special rights? Remember when it changes it will open the door for interpretation of the law to allow many things to happen..
What "special" rights are you referring to? Allowing homosexuals to marry the consenting adults of their choosing, as we heterosexuals can? That is called "equality," bob, and it falls under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
BTW, bob, the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery; it does not allow it.
Go to civics class.
Maybe you should read it. What did that 14 amendment do for anybody in 1868? Cite this, cite that, it is irrelevant to common sense. The free'ers prefer if it feels good do it, compassion or selfishness? This article is about the money. If she wanted her to have her assets it would have been a joint account or shared wealth. No that didn"t happen, so it was probaly more of a physical relationship, devoid of true love.
Current 13 amendment; read literally like you do for separation issues.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Hello! Mcfly you in there?
The clause about punishment for a crime refers to involuntary servitude, bob. Apparently you are not adult enough to understand this. Tell us where slavery currently exists in the US.
The SCOTUS says so, and that's as good as being in the Constitution!
Your projecting! Just the facts please. The word slavery is in there and implied. Just as good as constitution? Sheesh!
Literal: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except... Example: Church and State./ Slavery and servitude.
You first. But then, I'm addressing the issue of marriage, which is a right. I'll let Erin continue to smack you down on other constitutional issues.
Do you mean the old 1868 law? That doesn't have one iota to do with marriage. The law will become co-habitation under contractual law, not constutional. I thought Spock used logic? The avatar you use is misleading. Contractual unions will become available to everyone in the near future, and sex, marriage, and relationship will not matter. That is the logical conclusion. You concur with Erin's assessment of 13th amendment when I put it right there in Black & White?
Marriage is a legal union. Gender is moot.
Then there is always this, which would make their vote if they ever voted almost double moot.
Seems popular opinion has changed into the gays favor.
yes, very much so. People are finally figuring out that denying others rights based on personal bigotry goes against the fundamental beliefs of american freedom.
Caral nothing really has changed the Silent Majority still feel the same.....Marriage is between a Man & Woman.....
@guy;
Well if they all stay silent then everything might be o.k.lol For the Supeme court to address this means things have changed.
The publics attitude has changed over the past few years. This is evident.
@guy, Constitution trumps silent majority. You lose.
The "Silent Majority?" Is that like the "Moral Majority", which was neither?
Too bad for you, OHguy, that the majority of Americans actually support equality.
Good thing the "majority" means nothing in regards to this issue since we don't vote on civil rights.
It's just amazing to me that so many people actually seem to care one way or another.
Naturally the hand-wringing religious freaks are gonna go ape $h!t about it, since their ancient beliefs and values were written and dictated pretty much exclusively by sexually-repressed male perverts and control freaks (apparently child molestation is just downright okey dokey with the Catholics - just for one example). But for normal, intelligent people to get all excited over something as silly as somebody's sexual orientation in this day and age is completely ludicrous!
God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Everett. That was so procreation could take place. Man on Man nor Woman on Woman can accomplish that. I also think that any child molester no matter who or what religious authority, should be dealt with appropriately.
The Bible also says that you should kill someone if you see them collecting sticks on the sabbath or if your child comes home professing belief in another God. How sweet!
Too bad for you that God does not make our laws; they are not based on fairy tales.
What does procreation have to do with marriage? And if marriage is only for procreation, why are marriage licenses given to the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not want to have children?
Since approximately 90% of all child molesters are heterosexual, married men, that would mean that gays are left alone.
363,000.00 estate tax bill? Sounds like one of those 1% people trying to make a point just to keep her wealth. I bet it is more about that then the same sex marriage thing. Greed at any cost.
But why should Ms. Windsor be forced to pay such a tax on that inheritance, when a surviving spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not be? That's hardly greed; that's unfair and unequal treatment -- which violates the 14th Amendment.
Erin, she did it illegaly in Canada that N.Y. does not recognize. You also said the magic word in your post. Ms, not Mrs.
WRONG. NY does recognize same-sex marriage, and it is now legal in NY state. And "Ms." is the accepted title for women, whether married or unmarried.
Whenever a majority wants to demonize a minority they will always portray them as a threat to the most vulnerable of the majority. The gays will molest our children diatribe is no different than when people used to believe blacks go around raping white women and that Jews ritually sacrifice christian babies. If you can make the minority group look nefarious and evil it's easy to get people to jump on board the bigotry train.
Ms. is akin to Mr. it does not denote marital status it's a formal term for a woman.
That's nice. Prove it!
Irrelevant. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage, or vice versa.
show the PROOF that god created anything!!! evidence dude!!! show it or shut up!!! oh you haven't got it? didnt think so. besides not all people who believe in god believe in a hateful one like you do. what if i believe in a loving god? is your god better than my god?? HAHAHA you are a ignorant little child.
Not that it matters but it sounds like the elderly couple owned a very modest house on Long Island, and a very small apartment in Manhattan.
And the Feds confiscated the bulk of Edie Windsor's retirement funds, thanks to bigots like you.
We HAVE procreated and will continue to do so... to our own detriment, actually. Overpopulation is the singular most destructive force on the planet. If your entire argument is based on "procreation" are you suggesting that infertile couples, childless by choice couples and elderly couples are not eligible for marriage?
Due to a quirk in its laws, New York recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, long before it allowed them to be performed within the state. So, the fact that this couple got married in Canada is irrelevant.
I think the ultimate supreme court should be the people. I fail to see how the opinion of 7 individuals can override millions of voters (regardless on what they voted on and how they voted). Democracy is what the majority of people want and not presidents' appointed judges.
The US is not a democracy; we are not a country of majority rule. The tyranny of the majority cannot deny rights to the minority -- laws like Prop H8 are proof of why this is so.
If we were a democracy, interracial marriage would still be illegal, slavery would still be legal, and women would not be allowed to vote.
Go to civics class.
Haven't you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? Our fore fathers were keenly aware of this inherent problem. That's why the bill of rights and the separation of powers are so important to our republic
You obviously don't know how jurisprudence, or our system of government, works!
Our founders, who were quite a bit smarter than you can ever fathom, set up 3 separate but equal branches so that individuals would be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Were you home-schooled?
You will have the country you think you want
What is wrong with same sex marriage when incest is implied in the Bible if you Bible experts know what I am talking about?
Ya, locusts are incests, they had a lot of locusts in the Bible
The old testament advocates some extreme crap why some Christians pick and choose what they want to adhere to is beyond me. Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality. A common argument I have heard supposed Christians use to debunk this fact is to say that
The key difference is those have victims, gay marriage doesn't.
One Man - One Woman? Try READING your Bible!
Abraham - Faithful friend of God and father of the Hebrew nation - "Father of the faithful"
3 Wives - Sarah, Hagar and Keturah
"Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar." Genesis 16:1
"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Genesis 16:3
"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah." Genesis 25:1
One Man, One Woman ... well, maybe TRUTH is just a LITTLE different ... Oh well!
In ancient times, a concubine was a woman living in a lawful marriage arrangement with a man, but whose status was regarded as being less than a wife. Concubines were respected, had legal rights, and their children were regarded as legitimate, although the children of the wife (or wives) were most often given preference in matters of inheritance. While the inability of a wife to have children was a practical reason for the presence of a concubine in the family (e.g. Sarah suggested that her husband Abraham take Hagar as a concubine i.e. Genesis 16:1-3), the situation also sometimes reached absurd proportions, such as with Solomon who had 300 concubines along with his 700 wives (1 Kings 11:3).
Examples of concubines in Bible History:
•"Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country." (Genesis 25:5-6 RSV)
•"Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives. And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he called his name Abimelech." (Judges 8:30-31 RSV)
•Four of the tribes of Israel (Dan and Naphtali, and Gad and Asher) originated from Jacob's concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. See Children of Jacob
•"Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah." (2 Samuel 3:7 RSV)
•"And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David." (2 Samuel 5:13 RSV)
•"Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel." (2 Samuel 16:21-22 RSV)
•"King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem [see Temple Mount Treasures and Temples] be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them." (Daniel 5:1-2 RSV)
Do you actually think you are doing anything besides navel gazing when you spout this stuff? We are not a theocracy and our laws do not conform to your parochial and alligator-brained view of what some God said.
JS - That noise you hear is the point sailing over your head. lol The point is that Christians who say they believe the biblical definition of marriage to be "one man/one woman" have not read the bible... Because the above are examples of biblical marriage. For the record, my husband and I do NOT practice biblical marriage. One concubine or second wife and it is time to involve a judge. :-P
Concubines make great pets but you have to watch their spines
And the gays go "Hurrah!!! God is wrong and gays are right!! God will have to apologize for Sodom and Gomorrah, because the Supreme Court is higher than God..."
Uh, um, err, are you really SURE about that? Does it really matter what 9 sinners have to say about God's judgment upon an act which God regards as wicked and vile? In fact, it doesn't matter one iota what 6 BILLION sinners have to say about homosexuality. If the entire world approved of homosexuality and queer marriage, God will still judge this and all other sins according to his righteousness and the Word of God, the Bible.
So I don't care if queer marriage is approved by the Supreme Court, and all the gays think they have finally "won", because it is a victory that means absolutely nothing at all in the sight of God, who will reject all attempts to overthrow His truth. When Jesus comes again, He will destroy all existing human governments, including the corrupt judges and court systems that approve wickedness like homosexuality and queer marriages. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Romans 4:4)
It's just to get back at homophobes for being so angry and judgmental
The Supreme Court says nothing about "God's judgment;" it rules on Constitutional law, because God does not make our laws -- the Constitution does, and it is not based on fairy tales or your imaginary friend in the sky.
Keep YOUR God and bible out of MY government.
Fact: the Bible is incomplete and was compiled by a group of Romans. Other chapters have been discovered but are not recognized. What you believe is, at best, a partial truth and great falsehood and at worst, an invisible man in the sky invented to keep a population in control.
Spout scripture all you want, but everyone who quotes scripture is an idiot. That's like me reading half an encyclopedia and saying I know everything there is to know. Follow the moral teachings of the Bible if you so choose, there is nothing wrong with having faith. Assist those who come to you for guidance in following their own path. But do not attempt to force your beliefs on others and say you're better than they are.
I've met some truly wicked believers and met some truly wonderful non-believers.
Hey oldtimer, what was the sin that got Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed, as told in the Bible? "She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49. Yes, the Bible does speak of imorality, but, the sin that got the destroyed as not helping the poor and needy. You know, like Republicans who want to cut support assistance for the poor so they can have more tax cuts for the rich. If your God existed, THAT would be why He might choose to destroy this country. But, he doesn't so, get over it oldtimer.
libbies want all of our cities to look like Detroit..., oh what a wonderful world it would be!
I am still waiting for someone to show me where God has defined marriage as one man/one woman....
The anti-gay arguments are all based on religion. Every one of them. Even the ones based on 'morals' have a root in one religion or another.
Freedom of religion means an individuals right to practice any religion they see fit, provided it does not violate certain laws. Freedom of religion also means the right the practice NO religion. Forcing religious beliefs on others makes us no better than those that persecuted this country's founders.
Any decision by the Supreme Court other than to strike down Proposition 8 and the DOMA will be unjust.
And it wouldn't be any fun. The only pleasure would be a sadistic one felt by the homophobes, due to the unhappiness of the 'losers;' and while it's true that supporters of gay marriage would kind of enjoy seeing their opponents heads explode if it goes in favor of gay marriage, there would at least be a component of pleasure purely for the sense of equality.
losers!? really, put up or shut up; a lot of gays are worried that they will HAVE to get married. No more excuses fools...
Ah, so if gay marriage is approved, its opponents will be the winners...? Interesting take, I never thought of it that way.
Uh... what?! Heterosexual marriage is legal... and yet no one HAS to get married. WTF are you talking about?
I have heard a lot of highly abstract, moralistic language about the sanctity of traditional marriage from the anti-gay crowd, but I have never heard them explain how two men getting married in San Francisco will have any effect whatsoever on a married couple and their children in Alabama.
watch and wait..., it is the teaching of kindergartners and all of the other "unforseens" that happen each time some liberal policy is enacted. Do you realize liberals want to ban the burning of coal, but they want to burn as much marijuana as possible; that says it all.
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/11/teaching_kindergarteners_about_gay_marri.php
The only thing kindergartners are taught is that people are different and thats' no reason to hate them. Which most kindergartners already know, by the way.
That's ridiculous. First, there is nothing wrong with teaching children that families come in all shapes and sizes. Had there not been such a public hoopla about how "wrong" the marriage of the couple in your link was, they would likely have had no reason for trepidation. There was a time when that same trepidation was felt by interracial couples. Thankfully, in most states anyway, that particular family shape doesn't warrant a second glance.
lets just get this over with, so that these people can get on with their lives, and the rest of us to; good grief! trouble is, some of these libbies won't know what to do with themselves if they aren't protesting something.
...and the fundies won't know what to do if they aren't oppressing someone. Is your club not as "cool" if you can't deny membership to someone?
Has anyone stopped to consider the possibility that these rulings could put the entire gay rights movement in jeopardy? If these rulings go badly, it could set everything back decades.
Yes, many people would have preferred that the debate continue to take its course on the state level for awhile.
While I understand the sentiment, I base my hope in the American ideal of equality and freedom. Don't let me down, America. :-)
There's no doubt the court will find DOMA unconstitutional. The only question is in regards to Prop h8, but there's no reason for the court to take that case other than to make a broad ruling in support of equality. It would have been far easier for them to deny certiorari.
I think Ted Olson and David Boies were very smart about this case, and Judge Walker was very smart to hold a trial to establish findings of fact. It's the right case at the right time.
Prop 8 will have a more decisive effect... if 9th circuit court is upheld. The only thing a reversal would do is push the matter back into state hands. Not as risky as it would appear on the surface.
If the 9th circuit is simply upheld it doesn't really change anything since marriage equality will extend to California alone. If it's reversed I'm not sure what that would do since all the rulings in that circuit were against Prop 8 anyway. I seriously doubt it could be reversed given the Romer precedent, and I very much doubt they want to reverse Romer.
The only way it makes sense that they took the case is that they want to make a broader ruling and dig into Walker's findings of fact.
I guess my consideration would be that the 9th circuit ruling would be upheld on the grounds that denying same-sex marriage is, indeed, unconsitutional. That would mean that other states would not be able to make laws limiting marriage to opposing sex couples. Currently, quite a few states have laws that prevent the state from issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. If 9th circuit ruling is upheld by a stronger SC ruling, that would extend the end of restrictions to the states. It would simply take one couple from each of those states to contest the laws in Court. Lower Courts MUST follow precedent of the SCOTUS and the laws would be invalidated.
The 9th circuit ruling didn't address the merits of Walker's ruling but rather is based on Romer, where it's unconstitutional to take away an existing right from a disfavored minority alone. So if SCOTUS simply affirms the 9th circuit the only result will be that marriage equality is restored to California, due to the peculiarities of the Prop 8 case. And they may well decide that the proponents lack standing, and thus avoid making any ruling on the merits.
But if SCOTUS looks at the merits of the case - particularly Walker's findings of fact - they could make a Loving v Virginia type of ruling for the entire country.
The DOMA case is more limited in that regard and won't address the state marriage issues.
The other issues beneath the surface are the appropriate level of scrutiny and whether sexual orientation is a suspect class. There could be substantial impact on gay rights from these cases far beyond the marriage issue. The bigots are right to be worried.
I understand what you are saying. But I am of the belief that the very narrow Holding in Perry was done with purpose because it will allow a challenge based on SCOTUS ruling with regard to the similar bans in other states. (This is assuming affirmation.) Even the holding in Perry states: "Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently." So, wouldn't an affirmation confirm the level of scrutiny? (Unless they specify differently.) And while they didn't specifically call homosexuality in Romer, (preferring the "don't even go there" rationale) Scalia did discuss the four prong test in his dissent. Homosexuality would appear to satisfy all four.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say if it's reasonable for the court to extend the 9th circuit's ruling to be a broader equal protection claim about marriage rather than an equal protection claim about the removal of an existing right from a specific class. But from what I've read that seems a very unlikely extension.
However, there's nothing to stop the court from expanding the scope and looking at the merits of Walker's original ruling to make a broader ruling, which is what Olson & Boies are hoping will happen. The findings of fact will also be very appealing to SCOTUS.
Really it makes zero sense for the court to take the case simply to affirm it, since to deny certiorari would be to affirm it with no effort. Something else is going on, but we don't know which justices voted to hear it, only that at least four did. I've read some speculation that it might be the conservative four hoping to scuttle the marriage issue at the state level. I think that's unlikely because they didn't take up the recent adverse ruling in Nevada. It also could be that they want to answer the issue of standing in regards to referenda proponents. But I think it's most likely that they want to address the real underlying issue, whether a state can deny marriage based on the gender of the spouses.
As far as Scalia, he's already strongly indicated his predisposition to vote against equality. Maybe he'll be convinced otherwise.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-unprecedented-scalia-says-easy-to-outlaw-gay-marriage-aka-homosexual-sodomy/politics/2012/10/05/50378
Damn it. lol I didn't think of that. You're right, of course. It certainly would help to know which judges voted. I suppose Scalia wouldn't be offering this as a "peace offering" for the debacle that is Citizen's United? lol
I see the heterophobes are out in force today, they just cant stand to be normal, I am also sure the heterophobes wont like being called heterophobic but it is what it is. Simple as that.
Most of the folks who support marriage equality are straight. We're just not haters like you are.
First it was equality for women, then for people of every race, and now we move on to LGBT rights.
All faced immense opposition when they were being fought and now in retrospect we look back as a society and cannot imagine why the decision was so hard to make.
The same will be true 20 years from now when our children look at this debate.
Strip away religion from the conversation and one would be hard pressed to make a great as to why someone who is gay should not be entitled the same legal rights and protection as someone who is straight.
That's what this issue comes down to, not destroying or rejecting the religions that some choose to believe in, but in granting equal treatment under the legal law for all citizens.
Since we live in a country that was founded on the principle that from many could come one, we must never forget that while religions (all of them) play a part in our culture, our society is comprised or a multitude or people, some religious, some not, and our laws should reflect as much.
As hard as it may be for some people to accept the tide has turned on this issue and before long those who fail to evolve with our society will find themselves left behind.
Perhaps one day, as a wise man once said, we will make the decision from fear to love and eventually be able to explore space, both inner and outer, together in peace.
Well said. :-)
I read a lot here, but there is a bigger picture. The Religious Fanatics want a Theocracy. They say they want smaller government with less intrusion into their private lives. What these people don't realize if SCOTUS does ban same sex marriage and upholds DOMA. Then they will have given the federal government the power to do what they did not want the government to be able to do in the first place. In the Bible, it basically says that sex is for creating children and only for that purpose. In which of a broader since, the government could outlaw all sex that is not for creating babies, and all it would take is for one of these fanatics to become president and for enough of these fanatics to take control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and if you don't think that can happen just look at how close they came to doing that in this last election.
I think the theocrats already lost on that point with Lawrence v Texas. That's why Scalia was so upset in his dissent in that case, because he knew it would lead to marriage equality.
my answer to this is romans 1:27, jude: 7 and leviticus 18:22
wow , what a world we live in , the prophet lot would turn over in his grave if he could
My answer to that is: Who cares? Your bible doesn't make our or have say in our secular laws!
My answer to your answer is that the bible does not make our laws; we are a secular nation.
I know know where my vote will conitue to be, and that of my six adult children, we we will continue to vote against queers and lesbo's, wheather its marital equality or finacial medical (insurance), they can suffer since it is a life they patheticly choose.
So, who do you guys have to read the voting ballot to you?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This does not say nor should it ever say that because your sexuality or gender identification is different that you do not have equal rights to the laws and the protections that we have fought for over these many decades.