Prop 8 today, DOMA tomorrow

[AdamSmith]

The Guardian's live blogger is appropriately salty. That we are even having to adjudicate this shit...

...Over the next two days, the court will hear arguments over state and federal constitutional rights for same-sex couples – and possibly overturn a terrible gay-bashing law that Bill Clinton signed in the 90s for modest, personal political gain.

Today's first session concerns Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage in the California state's constitution – overturning the state supreme court's recognition of same-sex marriage just a few months earlier. This left thousands of couples who'd already exchanged vows suddenly unmarried. A legal battle ensued, with a US district court striking down Prop 8 on equal protection grounds, and a federal appeals court upholding the court's decision under a less sweeping rationale.

These various rulings, along with a number of tiresome procedural concerns accumulated over the years that the supreme court will first need to sift through, mean there's a vast, confusing array of possible outcomes for the Prop 8 case. Chris McGreal explains all of this, and more, in his long and detailed preview that you'll want to keep nearby for the next 48 hours.

Wednesday's arguments will concern the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a truly awful and mean-spirited law from another era (the 1990s) that most controversially denies married gay couples the federal benefits offered to married straight couples. We'll talk more about the Doma case as the day goes on and into tomorrow, but the legal eagles' consensus is somewhat clearer on this one: there's a strong chance the Supreme Court, like lower courts, will find the law unconstitutional on obvious-from-the-start federalist grounds and finally get this noxious crap off of the government's books.

In the Proposition 8 legal action, the supreme court could decide:

• There is a constitutional right, under the equal protection clauses, for gay couples to wed, in which case the laws in 30 states prohibiting same-sex marriages are overturned.

• The Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage is constitutional, leaving states free to decide the question for themselves.

• That once California permitted gay marriage, it could not then take that right away. That would have no impact in the majority of US states that are determinedly against gay marriage, at least for now.

• To uphold the Obama administration's position that California cannot go on recognising same-sex civil partnerships, with the same rights and burdens as marriage, without permitting gays to marry. That would also force seven other states that allow civil unions to introduce same-sex marriage but, again, have no impact on those states that ban gay nuptials.

Your trusty Guardian live blogger's musings will be supplemented by dispatches from our able-bodied warriors in the field. Chris McGreal will be reporting inside the chamber. Adam Gabbatt will be surveying the scene outside the court, where lines began forming before the weekend. He'll try to meet some of these devotees – or perhaps the unfortuante people they paid to serve as "placeholders" over the weekend and freeze to death in their stead – and whoever else shows up for the circus.

Let the fun begin. We will be covering every aspect of it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage-live

[AdamSmith]

Same source:

It's pretty simple: President Clinton signaled his support for and then signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 to get the issue off the table during his reelection year. Gay-bashing was a wildly popular political tactic in the 1990s, and Clinton rode the wave to victory. Clinton has since denounced Doma and come out in support of gay marriage, now that those stances are politically popular.

Look: there's no use in pounding politicians forever over each moment of moral impurity and opportunism; it's how things generally work.

But that doesn't mean we won't roll our eyes and feel severely nauseous reading credulous accounts like this, in today's New York Times, of how poor, burdened Bill Clinton felt so sad about signing that law and could barely even sleep, so... so troubled was his conscience:

He had just flown across the country after an exhausting campaign day in Oregon and South Dakota, landing at the White House after dark. But President

Bill Clinton

still had more business before bed. He picked up a pen and scrawled out his name, turning a bill into law.

It was 10 minutes before 1 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 21, 1996, and there were no cameras, no ceremony. The witching-hour timing bespoke both political calculation and personal angst. With his signature, federal law now defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. Mr. Clinton considered it a gay-baiting measure, but was unwilling to risk re-election by vetoing it.

For nearly 17 years since, that middle-of-the-night moment has haunted Mr. Clinton, the source of tension with friends, advisers and gay rights supporters.

Spare us.

[AdamSmith]

I Get To Determine Whether Gay People Can Marry

Commentary • Opinion • ISSUE 48•49 • Dec 11, 2012

By Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Last week, the Supreme Court decided to take up a pair of cases related to gay marriage, cases that will for the first time determine the constitutionality of laws denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. As a member of the nation’s highest court for the past 21 years, I can remember few rulings of such consequence as these two, which will affect the lives of so many people. So as the time approaches, I ask all Americans to think long and hard on what these decisions will mean for the future of our nation, and also think long and hard about the fact that I, Clarence Thomas, will get to determine whether gay people can marry each other.

That’s right, me: an embarrassingly undistinguished justice with a history of ethical misconduct who hasn’t spoken during an oral argument in almost seven years. I get to rule on whether gay people should have basic human rights.

Pretty crazy, right? I’m one of only nine Americans in a position to decide, in a matter of months, whether our democracy values the right of a group of human beings to get married.

Now, if you’re having a hard time wrapping your head around that one, you’re not alone. If you had told me in 1991 that I would one day have the power to decide the basic rights of millions of people, I would have laughed in your face. Back then, I was a 43-year-old appeals court judge with a flimsy record on civil rights and abortion who thought affirmative action was a form of “social engineering”—not exactly the kinds of views you’d expect in a jurist destined for the Supreme Court.

Yet lo and behold, that same year, despite accusations that I sexually harassed attorney Anita Hill, my appointment to replace retired justice Thurgood Marshall was confirmed. Soon enough, I was abstaining from oral arguments for years at a time and failing to disclose my wife’s sources of income.

I’ve spoken maybe two times in the past decade, for Christ’s sake. Think about that. That’s hundreds and hundreds of cases during which I’ve sat silently and twiddled my thumbs as my colleagues actively interrogated lawyers and posed tough questions about the scope and applications of laws—cases to which I barely paid attention, sometimes appearing to nap on the bench. And I get to have a say in deciding on a constitutional level whether or not all adult members of the human race have the right to recognize their unions? That historic judgment falls on my shoulders?

I’m not trying to belabor the point here. I just want you all to be fully aware that the future of gay and lesbian citizens in this country comes down to the opinion of nine people, one of whom—me—fell asleep during the inauguration of the first black president and believes states have the right to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant.

Speaking of, here are some other things I believe: felons have the right to bear arms unless the state explicitly forbids it, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned, corporations and unions should be permitted to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, and those campaigns should not be required to disclose donors.

Oh, and in 2003 I dissented in the court’s decision to strike down a Texas law prohibiting homosexual acts.

Yet in six months, in the year 2013, I’ll have the opportunity to decide whether hospitals can legally bar gay people from visiting their loved ones.

Take a second and think about the gay people in your life. Your best friend, your mom, your dad, your teacher, your coworker, your partner, you. I get to decide whether these people face institutional discrimination. The same goes for bisexual people, transgender people, and anyone else whose right to marry may be prohibited at the state or federal level. They are all searching for happiness, and their happiness all depends on the opinion of a man who once asked if someone put pubic hair on his Coke.

You want to hear something even weirder? Antonin Scalia gets to decide all this too.

So before these two judicial decisions are upon us, take a moment to reflect on what they mean for the future of our nation. As the tide of history turns and decisions of tremendous importance reach the highest court in the land, I will be there to judge them. Now, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

[AdamSmith]

Fervently to be hoped...

Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares'

News • supreme court • News • ISSUE 49•13 • Mar 26, 2013

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

Before Roberts officially ended proceedings, sources confirmed that all nine justices were reportedly dumbfounded, asking why the case was even coming before them and wondering aloud if some sort of mistake had been made. Calling marriage equality a “no-brainer,” members of the High Court appeared not just confused but irritated when Proposition 8 defenders argued that gay marriage was not a national issue but a state matter.

Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you even talking about?” while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, “You got to be fucking kidding me,” under his breath.

“I have to interject, Mr. Cooper,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. “Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you’re a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog shit, and you are wasting our time.”

“Should gay marriage be legal?” Ginsburg continued. “Yes. Done. Case closed. Goodbye. Christ, were we seriously scheduled to spend the next few months debating this?”

Even the typically conservative wing of the court maintained that, despite their personal views, it would be “downright silly” for them to rule that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

“I’m a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I’m looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law,” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. “So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God’s green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I’m saying is, who the fuck are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?”

Before adjourning the court, Roberts said there would be no official opinion on the case because it’s just “common goddamn sense,” and then addressed gay men and women directly.

“Get married, don’t get married, do whatever you want,” Roberts said. “It’s the opinion of this court that we don’t give two shits what you do.”

“C’mon, let’s go get some food,” added Roberts, as the eight other justices followed him out the door.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

[Guest hitoallusa]

Wow it's fake because it seems slightly better than what I would have written. I am pretty sure Justice Thomas has better clerks working for him... I don't approve a justice who hosts a personal event at the Supreme Court. Justice Lewis Brandeis would be so upset if he saw that.

Anyways, I hope these 9 justices write a new chapter in our history.

[AdamSmith]

Transcript of today's session:

http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2013/03_march/scotus-transcript.pdf

[AdamSmith]

One thing that emerged today is that Solicitor General Verrilli needs to be replaced as soon as practicible.

[Guest zipperzone]

It ain't going to happen guys. All that will be proved is that America is a socially backwards nation.

God, I hope I'm wrong.

What really frosts my ass is that what should be a no brainer is basically being left up to 9 non-elected people to decide.

[AdamSmith]

1. We don't know yet. Kennedy (or even Roberts, the Easter Island-head enigma) could be the tilt.

2. Thank the gods they ARE unelectable. Can you imagine what semblance we have of justice coming from otherwise? Same reason the Federal Reserve is insulated from the political class, to the extent it is.

[Guest EXPAT]

Everything You Need to Know: Marriage Equality at the Supreme Court.

[AdamSmith]

Review of what the Court may do...

Supreme Court has range of options on gay marriage

By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – 1 hr 37 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The waiting is almost over.

Sometime in the next week or so, the Supreme Court will announce the outcomes in cases on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The federal law, known by the shorthand DOMA, defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman and therefore keeps legally married gay Americans from collecting a range of federal benefits that generally are available to married people.

The justices have a lengthy menu of options from which to choose. They might come out with rulings that are simple, clear and dramatic. Or they might opt for something narrow and legalistic.

The court could strike down dozens of state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, but it also could uphold gay marriage bans or say nothing meaningful about the issue at all.

A look at potential outcomes for the Proposition 8 case and then for the case about DOMA:

___

Q. What if the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8?

A. This would leave gay Californians without the right to marry in the state and would tell the roughly three dozen states that do not allow same-sex marriages that there is no constitutional problem in limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Such an outcome probably would trigger a political campaign in California to repeal Proposition 8 through a ballot measure, which opinion polls suggest would succeed, and could give impetus to similar voter or legislative efforts in other states. Proposition 8 itself was adopted by voters in 2008, but there has been a marked shift in Americans' attitudes about same-sex marriage in the past five years.

___

Q. What if the court strikes down Proposition 8?

A. A ruling in favor of the two same-sex couples who sued to invalidate the gay marriage ban could produce one of three possibilities. The broadest would apply across the country, in effect invalidating constitutional provisions or statutes against gay marriage everywhere.

Or a majority of the justices could agree on a middle option that applies only to California as well as Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey and Oregon. Those states already treat gay and straight couples the same in almost every respect through civil unions or domestic partnerships. The only difference is that gay couples there are not allowed to marry.

This so-called seven-state solution would say that the Constitution forbids states to withhold marriage from same-sex couples while giving them all the basic rights of married people. But this ruling would not implicate marriage bans in other states and would leave open the question of whether states could deprive gay couples of any rights at all.

The narrowest of these potential outcomes would apply to California only. The justices essentially would adopt the rationale of the federal appeals court that found that California could not take away the right to marry that had been granted by the state Supreme Court in 2008, before Proposition 8 passed.

In addition, if the Supreme Court were to rule that gays and lesbians deserve special protection from discriminatory laws, it is unlikely that any state ban on same-sex marriage could survive long, even if the justices don't issue an especially broad ruling in this case.

___

Q. Are there other potential outcomes?

A. Yes, the court has a technical way out of the case without deciding anything about same-sex marriage. The Proposition 8 challengers argue that the private parties defending the provision — members of the group that helped put the ban on the ballot — did not have the right to appeal the trial judge's initial decision striking it down, or that of the federal appeals court.

The justices sometimes attach great importance to this concept, known as "standing". If they find Proposition 8's proponents lack standing, the justices also would find the Supreme Court has no basis on which to decide the case.

The most likely outcome of such a ruling also would throw out the appeals court decision that struck down the ban but would leave in place the trial court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. At the very least, the two same-sex couples almost certainly would be granted a marriage license, and Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., who opposes Proposition 8, probably would give county clerks the go-ahead to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

___

Q. Are the possibilities for the DOMA case as complicated?

A. No, although there are some technical issues that could get in the way of a significant ruling.

___

Q. What happens if the court upholds Section 3 of DOMA, defining marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman?

A. Upholding DOMA would not affect state laws regarding marriage but would keep in place federal statutes and rules that prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving a range of benefits that are otherwise available to married people. These benefits include breaks on estate taxes, health insurance for spouses of federal workers and Social Security survivor benefits.

___

Q. What if the court strikes down the DOMA provision?

A. A ruling against DOMA would allow legally married gay couples or, in some cases, a surviving spouse in a same-sex marriage, to receive benefits and tax breaks resulting from more than 1,000 federal statutes in which marital status is relevant. For 83-year-old Edith Windsor, a New York widow whose case is before the court, such a ruling would give her a refund of $363,000 in estate taxes that were paid after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. The situation could become complicated for people who get married where same-sex unions are legal, but who live or move where they are not.

___

Q. What procedural problems could prevent the court from reaching a decision about DOMA?

A. As in the Proposition 8 case, there are questions about whether the House Republican leadership has standing to bring a court case to defend the law because the Obama administration decided not to.

House Republicans argue that the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case because it changed its position and now argues that the provision is unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get her refund because she won in the lower courts, but there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court and it would remain on the books. It is possible the court could leave in place appeals court rulings covering seven states with same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

___

Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/shermancourt

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-range-options-gay-marriage-071707199.html

[AdamSmith]

[Guest hitoallusa]

Aww they are so cute... At least they have each other...

[Guest hitoallusa]

They will announce the rulings at 10 AM today. I have a good feeling about this.

[ihpguy]

So are Opie and Gayelle going to tie the knot?

[Guest EXPAT]

As you can imagine, NOM’s Brian Brown is upset with the California Supreme Court for striking down the last challenges to the Prop 8 ruling. “The way that activist judges have dealt with Proposition 8 is a travesty of justice and undermines the rule of law and the democratic process itself. The legitimate votes of 7 million Californians, and their fair-minded, reasonable position that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman, have been trampled underfoot by derelict politicians and activist judges. However, this is not the end of the debate. No judge or politician can redefine what God has created. NOM and our allies will work to make sure the people of California, and other states where marriage hasbeen redefined have a voice speaking for true marriage. So-called same-sex ‘marriage’ is a political creation; it doesn’t exist in reality. Eventually it will fall, and we will restore natural marriage in California.” The funny thing is, the only marriage we’re talking about is the kind created by the state. Literally. It’s a state law.

Meanwhile, the marriage challenge got underway in New Jersey, which is an interesting case, since their supreme court required the state give same-sex couples all the rights of marriage, which they did, through civil unions. But since the DOMA ruling doesn’t recognize civil unions as marriages, suddenly all the rights afforded by marriage aren’t there anymore, even if we’re talking federal rights.