obitoftheday asks: I consider myself pretty up on politics, social issues, and pop culture...but for the love of all that is holy, who is that woman in the DOMA post? (I know you reblogged but you all seem like smart folks who have all the answers.)
» SFB says: Why, that’s Edith Windsor, the woman who brought the case on DOMA—the one that could see DOMA overturned for good. As it turns out, Chris Geidner, the guy I reblogged (and one of the best journalists in the country on LGBT issues), wrote a really great profile of her a while back. It’s a must-read. — Ernie @ SFB
Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA
The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act’s prohibition on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages in a Friday filing, arguing that laws that target gay people should face additional scrutiny by courts reviewing them.
Under such heightened scrutiny, as it is called, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli says that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines “spouse” and “marriage” under federal law as only those marriages between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.
This paragraph in the brief is a part of history:
“BLAG makes an appeal to this Court to allow the democratic process to run its course. That approach would be very well taken in most circumstances. This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.”
There you go, guys. Obama’s White House has called out DOMA and wants to see it struck down. Huge story.
A divided federal appeals court in Manhattan struck down the Defense of Marriage Act Thursday as unconstitutional, joining an appeals court in Boston in rejecting the law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the case in the next year.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2-to-1 ruling only weeks after hearing arguments on a lower court judge’s findings that the 1996 law was unconstitutional.
The majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs rejected a section of the law that says “marriage” only means a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife and that the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. A federal appeals court in Boston earlier this year also found it unconstitutional.
Big news out of New York this afternoon. An appeal to the Supreme Court is expected, but that doesn’t change how important this is for millions of Americans. You can probably expect to hear quite a bit of discussion about Judge Jacobs’ rejection of the defense’s argument, that marriage has a traditional definition, in the next few weeks too.
DOMA Arigato, St. Joseph. A NY woman legally married last October to another woman (known as Jane Roe and Jane Doe, respectively) is suing her employer, Catholic hospital St. Joseph’s, for not extending insurance benefits to her wife. Because St. Joe’s is self-insured, they have freedom under DOMA and the federal government to not extend medical benefits to same-sex couples. This may well be the first case of its kind to take on both the federal government and a Catholic institution, and its decision could have far-reaching consequences —especially for religiously affiliated institutions — nationwide. source
Follow ShortFormBlog • Find us on Twitter & Facebook
BREAKING: Boston appeals court finds the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Will update this post as we get more.
EDIT: The decision is here, in case you’d like to look.
EDIT 2: The law was deemed unconstitutional in part over the denial of federal benefits. A key couple of paragraphs from the decision:
For 150 years, this desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute. This judicial deference has a distinguished lineage, including such figures as Justice Holmes, the second Justice Harlan, and Judges Learned Hand and Henry Friendly. But Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern.
To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.
You spoke too soon, Rand Paul. It sounds like the President’s views on marriage just got even gayer.Gawker’s Louis Peitzman • In a piece (referencing this) about how Obama’s hoping to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in his second term. Yes, you read that right. Let that sink in, everyone.
The vice president was saying what the president has said previously – that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights. That’s why we stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges and support legislation to repeal it. Beyond that, the Vice President was expressing that he too is evolving on the issue, after meeting so many committed couples and families in this country.
A spokesperson for the vice president emailed over further clarification on the “Meet the Press” remarks, stating in part that Biden had not fully endorsed same-sex marriage.
Vice President Joe Biden Tells ‘Meet The Press’ He’s ‘Comfortable’ With Marriage Equality
Hold your applause folks. We’re dialing back the remarks.
(via apsies)
Joe needs to fire that spokesperson.
How can our country, with a President who knows discrimination in his core, how can they continue to uphold DOMA?Vermont resident Frances Herbert • Discussing the issues her wife, Takaka Ueda, is facing. Herbert is legally married to Ueda — a native of Japan and her partner of 13 years — and in shock, after the Department of Homeland Security sent a letter denying Ueda’s request to stay in the country. Ueda moved to the US from Japan in 1999, but is now living in the country illegally and faces deportation. Vermont’s congressional delegation has even stepped in, submitting a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, asking them to reconsider. Now the couple plans to fight the ruling, and the Defense of Marriage Act in general, in hopes of preventing this from happening to anyone else. Think they’ll succeed? source (via • follow)
» Don’t forget, this is taxpayer money, allocated by House Republicans to their legal counsel to defend DOMA in court. It was originally capped at $500,000, but that limit has since been tripled.
There was no open support of gay marriage in tonight’s speech, but Obama did speak out in favor of more equality for gays. The president, fresh off his success with the full repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” continued pushing for his view on the Defense of Marriage Act — ”It should join ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ in the history books,” he said — and emphasized the hard work that he’s done for the gay rights movement over the past three years. (He also, when bringing up his jobs bill, dropped a couple of government-related lines that will anger those on the right, such as “I believe in a big America”.) While Obama has yet to come out in support for gay marriage (perhaps his most puzzling view), he has done more for gay rights than any president, ever. Still, his view on gay marriage is one that was likely on the minds of many listening to Obama. Here’s how his views have changed on the still-controversial issue over the years:
(pic via Twitter user Johnny Lee)
I’m moving back to New York in a few days. Unlike past...
OMG. I got so...
In this week’s Newsweek, a little...
Tumblr this morning. [h/t anne]
#@#$%!.tumblr.com
Here’s a hidden feature that shipped in...
Watch: PCB gets a visual shout out on GMA’s Yahoo/Tumblr...
Mike Huckabee no likey what the DOJ did today. The social conservative, who looks like a reasonable bet as a 2012 candidate, gives an interestingly socioeconomic view of why Obama’s move to not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court is a bad idea. We disagree with him but note that his argument that voters have turned it down at the ballot negates the fact that the public’s views have shifted recently. source
Meet Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer. This trailblazing couple lived together for 44 years – long before gay rights were recognized and respected. The couple married in Canada in 2007 and lived in New York, where their marriage rights were recognized. Their story is even the subject of a documentary. Spyer, who suffered from multiple sclerosis, died in 2009 at age 77. Windsor, 81, wasn’t recognized as Spyer’s wife due to DOMA and had to pay $350,000 in inheritance taxes after Spyer’s death. So, as one might do when forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars over a law they don’t like, she sued the government. (A male couple, Gerald V. Passaro II and Thomas M. Buckholz, did the same in similar circumstances.) Let’s just emphasize – someone being forced to pay $350,000 in inheritance taxes after their spouse dies, just because they’re the same sex as the person they love? It’s no wonder Obama backed down. source
The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits.A so-called anonymous source talking to the National Journal • Explaining what the whole Obama-DOJ-not-defending the Defense of Marriage Act means for current court cases. Let’s be clear, though – the law is still law, but Obama will choose not to have his people take it to court, because he feels that the law will not pass muster. This is not a step he takes lightly, though. Obama also, in a note, told Congress that if they want to defend the statute, they still can. But his folks won’t mess with it. Obama supports repeal of the bill, but the DOJ has defended DOMA in court as recently as January. source (via • follow)
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
