- Made-Over Merida From 'Brave' Not Dead Yet
- Meet the Man Who Has Lived Rent-Free Near Sausalito for 50 Years ... On an Illegal Boat
- Bay to Breakers 2013: Not Without Incident, Full of Color
- Proposed California Gun Laws Aim at Safe Storage
- News Pix: Bay to Breakers Rules and SF Citizen Scientists Take Over McLaren Park
- Jon Spangler on BART Directors to Vote on Ending Commute-Time Bike Restrictions
- Longago on Meet the Man Who Has Lived Rent-Free Near Sausalito for 50 Years ... On an Illegal Boat
- jovyxafeseda on Meet the Man Who Has Lived Rent-Free Near Sausalito for 50 Years ... On an Illegal Boat
- Cole on Meet the Man Who Has Lived Rent-Free Near Sausalito for 50 Years ... On an Illegal Boat
- SteadyShip on Meet the Man Who Has Lived Rent-Free Near Sausalito for 50 Years ... On an Illegal Boat
- Report: Bay Area Muslim Population Now One of Largest in U.S.
- The Making Of… Live @ SFMOMA
- VA Backs off Promise to Catch Up on Veterans' Claims
- Whilst in SF: Arrested Development Edition
- Inventor Says 'Jif' Not 'Gif', KQED Newscasters Say Tough
- Good Read: How to Teach Students Better Online Research Skills
- The 32nd Northern California Book Awards
- Powerful Documentary Highlights ‘The Power of Two’
- Photographer Bryant Austin's Close Up With Whales
- Bay Area Wins Bid to Host Super Bowl in 2016
Search this blog
- Animals and Wildlife
- Arts and Entertainment
- Blog Beat
- Business and Finance
- California History
- Central Valley
- Criminal Justice
- Disability Issues
- Drug Policy
- Federal Government
- Fill in the Blank
- Gender Issues
- Gun Issues
- Human Rights
- Law Enforcement
- Morning Splash
- Native American Issues
- Natural Disasters
- Night life
- Pension Reform
- Poverty Issues
- Public Insight Network Stories
- Quotes of the Day
- Racial Issues
- Real Estate
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Santa Cruz
- State Budget
- Wednesday Weeklies
Follow KQED News on Facebook
Connect with KQED News on Twitter
About the Blogger
Tag Archives: DOMA
For almost two hours Supreme Court justices heard arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions were around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.
The justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Barack Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.
UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.
Amar: If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big take-away from this has always been, the court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.
The basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.
On Valentine's Day last month, about a dozen gay and lesbian couples showed up at San Francisco City Hall. They wanted something they knew they couldn't have: A marriage license.
The protest, organized by Marriage Equality USA, happens every year. And every year the couples are turned away.
Thom Watson from Daly City came with his partner.
"You're really never fully prepared for what it's going to feel like yet again to be turned down for something that you want so badly and that other people take for granted," Watson said.
The right to get that legal document from a county clerk is what Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing is all about: whether California's Proposition 8 — a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman — violates equal protection under the law guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
In California's June 2000 primary, 61 percent of the electorate voted "yes" on Proposition 22, a measure that amended state law to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized " in the state. The state Supreme Court overturned the law in 2008 as discriminatory, opening the way for same-sex couples to get legally married in the state. About 18,000 gay and lesbian couples took advantage of the chance to tie the knot.
But the door that had been opened to same-sex couples slammed shut in November 2008, when voters passed Proposition 8. The measure, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, passed with 52 percent of the vote.
Gay-marriage advocates immediately filed challenges with the California Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, and in May 2009, the court upheld Prop. 8, another blow against same-sex marriage.
The U.S. Supreme court has set dates for hearings on two cases concerning same-sex marriage. It will hear arguments on California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state, on March 26, beginning at 7:00 a.m. Pacific time.
It will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA the next day, on March 27, at the same time.
In the Proposition 8 hearing, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the court is asking parties to argue whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of a man and a woman.
It's also asking them to present arguments on whether the people defending Proposition 8 — its sponsors — have legal standing. Normally state government officials would defend a state law that is challenged in federal court, but in this case California's governor Jerry Brown opposes the law.
DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage for any purpose under federal laws, such as providing benefits like healthcare. In United States v. Windsor, the court is asking the parties to present arguments about whether this violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.