The Supreme Court of the United States will be hearing two cases regarding marriage equality within the next two days.
Tomorrow, SCOTUS will be hearing the case of Hollingsworth, Dennis, et al. v. Perry, Kristin M., et al. (12-144) - regarding Proposition 8 in California. Wednesday, the court will be hearing the case of United States v. Windsor, Edith S., et al. (12-307) - regarding the Defense of Marriage Act which affects the entire country.
I've included three great articles from today, and will post more here. The first two are from CNN and the last is from Time Magazine. I'm not bolding anything. If you want to read, read. If you don't, don't.
I will post more quality articles here when they become available.
Court is in session at 10 am EST. Audio from the two cases will be released.
If you're a religious person, please pray that equality prevails.
Any kind of decision won't come until June - regardless of how well everything goes tomorrow and Wednesday.
-------
Washington (CNN) -- With equal amounts enthusiasm and charm, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami call themselves "regulars guys," and "loudmouths" to boot. Their once low-key love affair has put the couple from Burbank, California, in the national spotlight -- co-plaintiffs in a monumental fight now before the Supreme Court that tests the generations-old concept of marriage.
The same-sex couple wants to wed with the state's blessing and, along with a lesbian couple from Berkeley, they have challenged a voter-approved measure known as Proposition 8, which defines marriage only as between one man and one woman. Arguments in that and a related appeal over federal recognition of same-sex marriage will be argued next week.
But it is the "Prop 8" case where the high court is being asked to establish the constitutional "equal protection" right. It is the kind of hot-button issue that will define our society, our laws, our views on family.
"This is about our equality," Katami told CNN's Crime and Justice Correspondent Joe Johns. "This is about our freedom and our liberty. So we are not trying to topple marriage. We are not trying to redefine marriage. What we are trying to say is that equality is the backbone of our country."
"The biggest harm is probably that we can't get married and we love each other," added Zarrillo. "And the harm of not being able to call him my husband."
The political, social, and legal stakes of this long-simmering debate will once again put the high court at the center of national attention, a contentious encore to last summer's ruling upholding the massive health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.
Forty-one states have specific laws blocking gays and lesbians from legally marrying. But last November, voters in three states -- Maryland, Washington, and Maine -- approved same-sex marriage, adding to the six states and the District of Columbia that already have done so. Minnesota voters rejected an effort to ban such unions through a constitutional amendment.
And just this week, elected leaders in New Mexico urged same-sex couples to apply for wedding licenses.
As more states legalize same-sex marriage, one of the key questions the justices may be forced to address is whether a national consensus now exists supporting the idea of expanding a "marriage equality" right to homosexuals.
There are about 120,000 legally married same-sex couples in the United States.
Nine other states, including California, New Jersey, Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island and Hawaii, have legalized domestic partnerships and civil unions for such couples -- a step designed in most cases to provide the same rights of marriage under state law.
But other states have passed laws or state constitutional amendments specifically banning such marriages. California's Prop 8 is the only such referendum that revoked the right after lawmakers and the state courts previously allowed it.
Last year, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled the measure unconstitutional. In its split decision, the panel found that Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage.
The law's supporters say a state's own citizens, not the courts, should decide such fundamental, time-honored questions.
"Marriage is the major cornerstone in Western civilization and that's how societies and cultures over time have defined it -- between one man and one woman. So, to suggest a transformation from that vital definition that's dramatically different is a very serious change that's upon us," said Austin Nimocks, co-counsel defending California's marriage amendment. He works at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom. "But ultimately it depends whether Americans can make this decision for themselves and not have it imposed upon them by judges."
Dozens of civil rights and other gay rights groups are hoping the high court gives a sweeping endorsement of marriage equality for homosexual couples. The oddball legal team of conservative Theodore Olson and liberal David Boies successfully made their case in the lower courts and urged the justices to now order states to stop marriage discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, calling it the "defining civil rights issue of our time."
"I think that we hurt people when we tell them they're no good. We tell them that they're not equal to us, and we say your loving relationship doesn't count?" Olson told CNN in 2010 as he argued the case in the federal appeals court. "We're putting a badge on them that says 'unequal' and that's contrary to everything we believe in this country."
Katami is a fitness instructor, Zarrillo manages cineplexes. Fourteen years ago Jeff came out of the closet after moving to southern California. The two met online and their relationship has slowly developed into a lifetime bond.
They have never married, or had either a state-recognized civil union or domestic partnership, calling that "second-class citizenship."
"Marriage has distinctive definitions and rights that come with it. And a domestic partnership seems like a corporate document, in fact it acts almost exactly as one," said Katami. "Do you really invite people and have cake at a domestic partnership signing? That's not what represents who we are. We represent a married a couple and we need to be married."
They jumped into the political debate five years ago when Zarrillo saw an anti-gay marriage video online, called the "Gathering Storm." He encouraged his partner to see it.
"I was hounding him saying, 'Hey, did you watch the video?'" said Zarrillo. "And sure enough, when I finally got him to watch it, he stood up off the couch and he said we have to do something -- we can't allow this to stand. Then we decided to shoot a response video."
The YouTube video attracted hundreds of thousands of hits, and attracted the attention of gay rights groups planning a legal challenge.
Along with Kris Perry and Sandy Stier -- parents of four boys from the Bay Area -- the two couples agreed to put their names on an audacious lawsuit. They say gays and lesbians have a fundamental "equal protection" right to wed. They equate their cause to the civil rights struggles of a half-century ago.
But opponents say not so fast.
"This is a process that California had undertaken to try to protect marriage in their constitution before we even had a definition posed by the California Supreme Court" affirming the right of gays and lesbians to wed, said Nimocks. "Obviously, they care about it. It was a very free and democratic debate, and the decision of the sovereign people should ultimately be allowed to stand."
The justices here have discretion to rule narrowly or broadly on the twisting aspects of the legal and procedural questions raised.
Californians, it seems, cannot make up their minds about gay marriage, and the issue has been down a complicated legal road. For a one-month period in 2004, San Francisco unilaterally issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but that was halted by the state's highest court while the legal issues were sorted out.
California's Supreme Court then ruled in 2008 that same-sex marriages were legal. After the statewide ballot measure banning them passed with 52% of the vote later that year, gay and lesbian marriages were again put on hold. But a federal appeals court then found that measure unconstitutional.
"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, decided the case on a very narrow ground," said Amy Howe, an appellate attorney and editor of the widely read SCOTUSblog.com. "They said we're not deciding whether there's some broad right to same sex marriage. What we're deciding here is that, under the Supreme Court's own case law, if you have a right to same-sex marriage, which existed in California, and then the voters take it away out of animus towards gays and lesbians, that violates the Constitution. So the court could decide the case on that ground. It could also decide the case on the ground that is urged by the United States in the California case."
The Obama Justice Department also took a compromise position, the so-called "eight-state solution," where civil unions are permitted. The federal government, which is not a party in the Prop 8 case, told the high court that a state cannot give homosexuals all of the rights and responsibilities of a committed relationship but not give them that important label of marriage.
And there is an "out" if the court wants to avoid the issue entirely. Because the state's governor and attorney general refused to defend Prop 8 in court -- defying custom -- that left an important "standing" question: Could private citizens supporting the measure step in and make the case? If the justices decide they cannot, Prop 8 would be history, at least for now. And no binding precedent would be set for other states to follow on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.
Some in the LGBT community worry things may be moving too soon, too fast; the country and courts may not be ready to embrace a constitutional right, and that the cause of equality could be set back. A decade ago, no states allowed same-sex marriage, and public opinion was squarely against the idea.
But the Prop 8 plaintiffs say the time is right.
"Early on, Paul one day came home and he was a little upset, asking, 'Are we doing the right thing? People say we can set the movement back.' And I was in the kitchen and I actually raised my voice," said Katami, "and I actually don't raise my voice very often at him: 'I don't know where this is coming from! Do you want to be treated like a second-class citizen for the rest of your life?' Win or lose we can go to our graves saying that we tried, we did something."
"A lot of people have come before us and there's a responsibility that each generation has, especially within a minority community like the LGBT," said Zarrillo. "I think that our generation's responsibility is to win equality. And I think we are going to do that."
--
(CNN) -- After years of struggle on both sides of the issue, the question of same-sex marriage goes before the U.S. Supreme Court this week. People were already lining up outside the court Friday morning for the limited number of seats available Tuesday and Wednesday, when the justices will hear oral arguments on two cases.
For those of you who won't be in the courtroom, here's a look at what to expect.
As Joe Biden might say, it's a big family deal
GOP shift on same-sex marriage No straight weddings allowed DOMA's effect on same-sex couples Same-sex marriage push in New Jersey
These are no ordinary laws before the Supreme Court: They represent battles over a generations-old concept of marriage and the rights of an increasing number of families in legally recognized gay and lesbian relationships.
There are an estimated 120,000 legally married same-sex couples in the United States. Nine states and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex couples to marry, and a dozen others recognize "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" that grant some of the same benefits without full marriage rights.
But 29 states have added bans on same-sex marriage to their constitutions, including California, the most populous state. Supporters of the same-sex marriage ban in California argue that it's not just tradition but also biology: "The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary -- culturally and biologically -- for the optimal development of a human being,"
How we got here
It starts back in 1993, when Hawaii's Supreme Court found that the state couldn't deny same-sex couples the right to marry without a "compelling reason" and sent the issue back to the state legislature. Hawaii lawmakers quickly passed a law banning gay marriage, and advocates of traditional marriage began mobilizing to fight the prospect of gays and lesbians being able to marry.
That led to the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 legislation that forbids the recognition of same-sex marriages nationwide and bars married gay and lesbian couples from receiving federal benefits.
But DOMA is becoming an orphan. Two federal appeals courts have already struck down its benefits provision; the Obama administration has refused to defend it; and former President Bill Clinton, who signed it, now calls it "incompatible with our Constitution." With the Justice Department now arguing against it, Republicans in the House of Representatives hired their own lawyers to defend the act.
The California ban, known as Proposition 8, passed by a 52-48% margin in 2008. It eliminated the right to marry that had been recognized by California courts earlier that year. Opponents of the measure challenged it in court and have succeeded in convincing federal judges at the district and appellate levels to find the ban unconstitutional.
One the biggest issues facing the justices is whether they can -- or should -- issue a ruling that will effectively broaden the legal definition of marriage, long restricted to heterosexual couples. Backers of DOMA and Proposition 8 say it should be up to the public to make that decision, not the courts.
"Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process, " said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group.
"We don't need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution," Nimocks told CNN's State of the Union. "We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working."
But California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is arguing against Proposition 8, said voter-approved marriage bans "are simply unconstitutional." The Supreme Court has ruled more than a dozen times that marriage is a fundamental right, "and as it relates to a fundamental right, the court will hold that under the highest level of scrutiny."
"It is one thing to read the polls, which we have discussed, which show again that a majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage," Harris said. "But it is more important to read the Constitution."
Who to watch
Same-sex marriage advocates will be watching Justice Anthony Kennedy during this week's arguments. The generally conservative Reagan appointee has authored two opinions that advanced gay rights during his tenure, striking down state laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy and striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment that forbade local gay-rights ordinances. In that 1996 case, Kennedy wrote for the court, a state can't decide that a class of people are "a stranger to its laws."
Conservative supporters of the bans have turned their eyes toward Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The justice, a Clinton appointee, told a Columbia University forum in 2012 that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that struck down state bans on abortion short-circuited a political consensus on abortion rights.
Karl Rove, the onetime strategist for former President George W. Bush, told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that Ginsburg may oppose a sweeping decision in support of same-sex marriage.
"What we may see is a decision here that in essence is not a 5-4 decision, but a 6-3, 7-2 that says 'leave it up to the states,' " said Rove, whose old boss once endorsed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. "In fact, we could see an 8-1."
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the author of a lengthy Ginsburg profile for The New Yorker, said Ginsburg is likely to find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional but isn't likely to knock down bans on same-sex marriage nationwide.
"She does not believe in grand pronouncements, even liberal grand pronouncements, from the Supreme Court," Toobin said.
The court is hearing arguments as a public shift toward same-sex marriage appears to be gathering speed. The proportion of Americans who support same-sex marriage has grown from around 40% in 2007 to 53% in a CNN/ORC International poll conducted last week; 44% remain opposed.
Barack Obama ran for president in 2008 as a supporter of civil unions but not same-sex marriage. In 2012, months before facing voters again, he said his thinking had shifted and that he supported marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
"I had hesitated on gay marriage, in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient," he said. "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, ran as a defender of traditional marriage, and the party's platform opposed same-sex marriages. But since November, numerous GOP figures have emerged as supporters of same-sex unions.
Dozens of high-profile Republicans -- including former party Chairman Ken Mehlman, ex-presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman and actor Clint Eastwood -- filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Proposition 8 should be struck down. And earlier this month, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio announced he is now a supporter of the freedom to marry after finding out that his son -- a Yale sophomore -- is gay.
"Eventually, as time marches on, this is a country that believes pretty squarely in marriage equality," former Bush spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace told "Fox News Sunday."
--
TIME Magazine:
The Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow in two historic cases about whether same-sex couples have the right to marry. It is always difficult to predict Supreme Court rulings, but there is good reason to expect some kind of victory for marriage equality. The main reason: Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who is likely to cast the deciding vote.
The court is considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage in that state. These challenges are historic: though state and federal courts from Alaska to New Jersey have considered same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has never heard a case about it.
The Supreme Court is known for its sharp partisan divide. The four-justice liberal bloc is likely to be sympathetic to gay marriage, while the four-justice conservative camp is likely to be hostile – though how Chief Justice John Roberts will come out is far from certain. In the middle is the Court’s usual swing justice, Justice Kennedy, who has – surprisingly – been the court’s most steadfast supporter of gay rights.
A Reagan appointee, Justice Kennedy is no liberal, as he has shown on issues from affirmative action to corporate campaign spending. But he has repeatedly sided with gay litigants before the court. In 1996, early in the gay rights legal revolution, he wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans, striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment that prevented localities from passing laws protecting gay people from discrimination. In 2003, he wrote the landmark ruling Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas’s law against gay sex.
It is not clear why Justice Kennedy – who has not been a particular friend of racial minorities in civil rights cases – has been so sympathetic to gay rights. One factor could be that, as a law professor told the Los Angeles Times, he is a “California establishment Republican” who has traveled “in circles where he has met and likes lots of gay people.” A new PewResearch poll found that the biggest factor in changing people’s minds in favor of gay marriage is knowing a gay person.
Or it could be other factors: people have all sorts of reasons for the beliefs they hold. What matters is that in Justice Kennedy’s case, the sympathy for equal rights for gay people seems both sincere and deeply held. In his 2003 opinion striking down Texas’s sodomy law, Justice Kennedy not only said that the court’s 1986 ruling upholding a similar Georgia law was wrong – he insisted that its “continuance as a precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.”
As they say on Wall Street, past performance does not guarantee future results, but it would be surprising based on Justice Kennedy’s rulings so far if he did not side in some way with the supporters of gay marriage. If he is joined, as expected, by the court’s four liberals – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor – there will be five votes on the court sympathetic to the pro-gay marriage side.
Those five justices could well unite to hand down a sweeping, Brown v. Board of Education-style ruling that the equal protection clause requires all 50 states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriage. But there are many reasons that, owing to the specifics of the cases, the justices might do less. One option for the court in the Proposition 8 case is to say the parties do not have legal “standing” – and that they should not decide the case at all. (That would leave in place a lower-court ruling allowing gay marriage in California.)
Even some supporters of gay rights suggest there might be good reasons for the court to move slowly. They argue that gay marriage is doing well right now in the political process – and that it will eventually be adopted nationwide through legislatures and referenda. And they caution that having the Supreme Court order it could create the sort of backlash that emerged in 1973, after Roe v. Wade struck down abortion restrictions nationwide.
In the end, the law is what five justices say it is – and based on Justice Kennedy’s track record, there may be the votes for a far-reaching decision. Justice Kennedy has not been particularly tentative in his gay rights rulings in the past– he has written two landmark decisions and this could be his third. If Justice Kennedy is disturbed when the law “demeans the lives of homosexual persons,” he may be eager to provide the deciding vote to usher in marriage equality.
This is real life news, this **** ain't summarized like Billboard.
