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.
BREAKING: US Supreme Court will hear gay marriage cases
The US Supreme Court has agreed to take up two gay marriage cases in their first serious look at the issue.
The court today granted review of the Defense of Marriage act, a federal law which says marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, and Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California, NBC News reports.
More updates on BreakingNews.com.
Photo: Gay marriage advocates cheer during a rally outside a federal courthouse in San Francisco moments before hearing that judges had struck down Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, on Feb. 7, 2012. (Beck Diefenbach / Reuters file)
“Now that the Supreme Court is wading into the battle, the justices could decide the more basic issue of whether any state can ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.” This could be big, guys.
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.
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.
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.
Pick Rick? Former Republican senator Rick Santorum has officially announced his candidacy for President in 2012. We’ll admit, we were surprised when we long ago heard he might run, as we figured any candidate whose name can’t be safely Googled would be advised by strategists to sit it out. For perspective on his political stripes, here Santorum brings up gay marriage as an example of Obama devaluing our “moral currency.” The fact that he uses this rhetoric in his announcement speech is telling — that’s what he wants to be talking about, not currency standards. And in a country that seems to care less and less about who wants to fall in love and get married, this could very well be the last stand for one of America’s most strident political culture warriors. source
For a big law firm with an international reputation like King and Spalding, this could have gotten very ugly for them. This kind of thing could have stuck to them for decades. People no longer want to be associated with this kind of discrimination.Richard Socarides, gay rights advocate • Speaking about legal firm King and Spalding withdrawing from their plan to defend the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) in service of the House GOP. The decision has caused a split within the firm, as Paul Clement, one of the partners involved with the case, has resigned in protest and will continue to work for DOMA’s defense, saying that even unpopular causes deserve legal representation. Socarides disagrees, claiming the law is discriminatory and thus is un-American, and that there’s no merit in defending such a cause. We agree in the moral sense, perhaps, but ultimately Clement is correct — legal representation is a keystone of our system of justice, and even though King and Spalding has every right not to take this case, at some point some lawyer does have to step up, personal beliefs aside. source (via • follow)
Wrote a thing.
Hat tip to this headline writer.
Congrats Tumblr!
Don’t screw this up Yahoo.
In 2007, I was...
I started tumblr when I was at one of the lowest points of...
Exclusive: How the Syrian Electronic Army hacked the...
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
