Surprised no one has said anything about this given the magnitude of both cases. For those that haven't followed what is happening, the Supreme Court listened to arguments from the Prop 8 case. It seems that it is split 4-4 (unless Roberts flips) with Kennedy hinting that he doesn't want to rule one way or the other. After hearing the proceedings today, it seems like the Court will avoid ruling altogether and the lower court rulings will result in prop 8 being overturned (and thus gay marriage being legalized again in California). However, that also means there wouldn't be a broader ruling on same sex marriage from the court. Pretty disappointing news but Roberts could change his mind and decide he wants to cement a pretty big legacy by joining the 4 liberals. The DOMA case will be the bigger deal though. I strongly hope/expect the court to strike down section 3 of DOMA. Either way, its a pretty historic time for the court as these are probably 2 of the largest rulings in decades.
Why should the Court strike down Prop 8? The people voted for the law themselves; the Court should not overrule the majority opinion of the people and impede the democratic process.
If the majority of Americans voted to return to black people to slavery do you think the court should strike that down?
I'm in favour of gay marriage, but that's a poor comparsion as, slavery is banned in the 13th Amendment. As of right now, there is no constitutional amendment on gay marriage.
A closer parallel is interracial marriage which until the supreme court ruled on the issue was generally a state issue. Previous court decisions had held that if a state wanted to ban interracial marriage, it had the freedom to. What changed was that eventually the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment due process and equal protection guarantees applied to interracial marriage. The crux of that point was that discrimination based on race is prohibited as it violates specific guarantees of equal protection. Specifically the equal protection clause is listed below. The amendment is purposefully vague and doesn't single out race as the sole protected class this amendment has applied to. In fact the courts have expanded the fourteenth amendment to protect race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion etc.. It's just that gay rights have never been thoroughly considered. And more specifically, something as fundamental as gay marriage has never truly been litigated at the highest level. That's where the court comes into play here. It's not a matter of whether people have the right to simply ban gay marriage. If the court rules that the fourteenth amendment applies to GLBT families, then the people lose the power to deprive people of the right to marry someone of the same sex. I am hopeful that the courts choose to extend the fourteenth amendment to gays and lesbians. I am fairly confident that DOMA will fall so we will see progress but this is the court's chance to cement real progress. For all the skepticism in this case, Justice Kennedy clearly had plenty of sympathy for plaintiffs (and more specifically for the children of same sex couples who are forced to live with parents that are arbitrarily denied equal protection under the law) It's an open and shut case to me and in Justice Kennedy's heart I'm fairly certain he sees it that way too. But the pragmatic beliefs of the court will probably prevent it from making a bold ruling on this issue, which is a shame.
Why is the US government weighing in on a social tradition? I don't know why the government has anything to do with marriage or why a license is needed etc. What a waste of tax-payer dollars.
Marriage was a societal institution long before most modern religions even existed. Religion co-opted it from society rather than the other way around. Government is involved with marriage because it is involved in contracts - distribution of assets, family rights, guardianship of children, etc.
First off marriage has been a government issue long predating the US government. Second there is a government interest in regard to things like property, inheritance, benefits and other rights that are established by marriage. Personally I myself would like to see all that handled by contract law but that will never happen. Marriage is an institution that government has been involved with since the concept of government was first created.
Sadly this is a minority view. Gay marriage has to be the dumbest civil rights issue ever. The sanctimoneous lecturing and preening never ends. Comparing it to slavery and Jim Crow, good grief. It's not a crime to marry whomever you want. No one is stopping anyone from marrying. You can marry anyone or anything. All of this moaning over a freaking government certification. As if you need the blessing of the state to validate your union. Pathetic. Sadly, many people get off imposing their morality on others. In this case, imposing their notion of what marriage is. That's the appeal of the issue, the sense of moral superiority. You get to call others bigots. The whole marriage benefits thing is a red herring, as all of that can be done via contract. Guardianship, power of attorney, inheritance, shared assets, whatever. There should be no government benefit/penalty for being married. The state should not even know if you are married or not. When I marry I could care less who recognizes it. Certainly don't feel the need to force anyone to.
It's a minority view because this was never widely considered until gay marriage became an issue. 60 years ago I doubt anyone actually considered getting out of marriage as an issue at all.
Right, $300,000 in estate taxes is a red herring, especially for someone who hates a marginal increase in capital gains taxes. Your position makes no sense if you actually took the time to look at the issues at stake. Have you even read the brief for the Windsor case? If you had, you'd realize just how ignorant you're coming off as right now.
Please share how a not-legally-married gay couple can force a health insurance company to cover their partner as a spouse.
Sheesh, always with the forcing. They shouldn't force a health insurance company to do anything. They should find a health insurance company that offers the coverage they want. A demand for such policies would not go unfulfilled very long. Why would an evil greedy insurance company turn down same-sex money?
