Monday, 1 July 2013
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued two decisions in regards to LGBT Rights. One of them was in regards to California's Proposition 8.
In 2008, California passed a law allowing for same-sex marriages to be preformed within the state. At this time, only Massachusetts was the other state where same-sex marriages were preformed. However, those against the idea were able to place a ballot initiative that would change the California State Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. As highlighted in the documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition, the Yes on 8 campaign received A LOT of support from the Mormon Church based in Salt Lake City, UT.
Election Night 2008 is remembered for two things....
First:
"Barack Obama is projected to be the next President of The United States of America."
- Keith Olbermann, 10 PM (CT) 4 November 2008
Yes, it's true. Keith Olbermann worked for MSNBC. And Current TV. And Fox Sports. And ESPN. And CBS 2 in Los Angeles. And CNN.
Well, here is hoping his upcoming gig with TBS works out.
Second:
What followed was about 4 years of litigation before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments and released its decision.
The 5-4 decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) ruled that the petitioners did not have standing in the case. The state of California refused to take part in the litigation, but the proponents of Prop 8 were willing to take the case.
If you wish to read the opinionyou are more than welcome to as it contains a lot of references to Article III and the question of standing.
But SCOTUSBlog has the plain English explanation from their live blogging event (scroll down to 10:40):
Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor.
Now that is a weird 5-4 line up.... but so was last year's ObamaCare decision where Chief Justice Roberts joined with the court's 4 liberal leaning members.
In other words, it was a narrow ruling that only impacted California. While I would have preferred that the court issued a wide ruling declaring that such bans of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional, I expected that the court would go with a narrow ruling based on what I have read and heard. The court kicked it back down to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case.
On Friday, the Ninth Circuit issued this one sentence judgment:
"The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately."
And the two couples involved in the Prop 8 litigation were seen on television getting married.
And here is the first live wedding on The Rachel Maddow Show
But alas, the opposition has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and filed an emergency stay to halt these marriages. Good news is that Justice Anthony Kennedy told them to take a hike.
To the opposition: You lost. Get over it.
Congrats to the all the gay couples in California. You've earned it.
The big LGBT Rights cases announced on Wednesday challenged the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
In 1996, the Republican controlled Congress passed a bill that President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed. Clinton, who in 1992 stated he would be the first President to champion gay rights, went back on that promise with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and then in 1996 facing re-election signed DOMA. Representative John Lewis and many House members fiercely stated their opposition to the bill. The law defined marriage for the purpose of federal benefits as one man and one woman. The law denied 1,138 benefits to federal employees involved in same-sex marriages.
Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer were together for 46 years. In 2007 the couple married in Canada under their equal marriage laws passed which were passed in 2005. Coincidently enough, that was the same year of the NHL's season long lockout that resulted in the Stanley Cup Final not being played.
If you get a chance watch Edie and Thea: A Very Long Engagement. It's about an hour long. It's very funny and sweet about how these two were together for so long and how Edie takes care of her wife Thea.
Thea Spyer passed away in 2009. As executor of Thea's estate, the IRS compelled Edie to pay over $350,000 in back taxes. The state of New York recognized their relationship as at the time the Empire State recognized same-sex couples who were married in other places.
In November 2010, Edith "Edie" Windsor with assistance from the ACLU sued the United States over that this policy discriminated her. In March 2013, oral arguments were heard in the case of United States v. Windsor (2013).
Among those that signed onto the amicus briefs were 212 members of Congress, Electronic Arts (creator of the popular Madden NFL series), Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), Microsoft and Starbucks, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).
IAVA wasn't the only veteran group to sign on to the repealing DOMA. Former congressman and retired Navy Admiral Joe Sestak authored this op-ed in philly.com stating his support for DOMA repeal. Several retired military leaders, service members and families, and Outserve-SLDN also filed amicus briefs in support of repealing DOMA.
After oral arguments, Ms. Windsor made this statement on the steps of the Supreme Court:
"I am today an out lesbian... who just sued the United States of America."
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion with the four liberal-leaning justices joining. Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Thomas joining.I read Kennedy's opinion. Here are the portions that stood out the most to me.
The Act’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law. This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
DOMA’s operation in practice confirms this purpose. When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage, it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates that objective through a system-wide enactment with no identified connection to any particular area of federal law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits.
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.
From there it goes into detail about how DOMA impacts couples.
And here is where Justice Kennedy lowers the boom!
The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Section III of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. In effect DOMA is dead. It is still there, but it's dead weight. And we don't dump anything within 50 miles from shore.
All and all this case (along with the Prop 8 case, which I will have up shortly) was a big (bleeping) deal. This country has come a long way in LGBT Rights.
But, as stated earlier, a new journey begins.
And I welcome it.
Last week Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D, SD-10) took to the floor of the State Senate and filibustered the proposed anti-abortion omnibus bill that would shut down all but 5 reproduction service provider clinics in Texas.
Though the purpose of this entry is not about the Davis filibuster. That is for this entry. The purpose of this entry is about the action of filibustering and maybe a possible solution to the current gridlock in Washington, DC.
Senator Davis began her filibuster at 11:18 AM (CT) on 25 June 2013 and ended at 10:07 PM (CT) that same day. Texas filibuster rulesare unique. Like the United States Senate, once you start you cannot leave the floor. Though the differences are that you cannot eat or drink anything. And unlike the US Senate, you have to stay on topic. Unlike the PREVIOUS filibusters, Republicans have engaged in...
Senator Harry Reid (Senate Democratic Leader, NV) tweeted his support of Senator Davis.
Wendy Davis engaged in the kind of filibuster I can support. #standwithwendy#SB5
— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) June 26, 2013
Maybe the United States Senate should adopt Texas Rules for filibustering.
And perhaps Congress will FINALLY accomplish something.
Letica Van de Putte is a State Senator representing San Antonio. She is chair of the Veteran Affairs and Military Installations Committee in the State Senate.
In this op-ed to the Houston Chronicle on 26 June 2013 she explains why she said what she said on Tuesday night during Senator Wendy Davis's filibuster of SB 5.
As most people know, I rushed back to the Capitol on Tuesday night after saying a final goodbye to my daddy. When I returned to the Senate floor, it didn't feel like the Senate I had left last Friday. There was an energy that is hard to explain - part tension and part excitement. While you could cut the tension on the floor with a knife, the excitement coming from the gallery and the rotunda almost masked the anxiety my colleagues were emitting. The entire gallery was filled with our constituents, and they were watching politely and attentively trying to follow parliamentary procedures that it takes years for most to understand.
Their disdain for Senate Bill 5 was much like mine, and they were there to say that they would never surrender their reproductive rights without taking a stand. They were "standing with Wendy" (Fort Worth Sen. Wendy Davis, who was attempting a 13-hour filibuster of the bill), and I was going to stand with her, too.
I believe that women throughout our state believe they've gained too much to give it back now.
Unfortunately, some of my Senate colleagues do not believe in trusting women with their reproductive organs. It's amazing to me that they do not trust women with a choice, but they trust them with a child.
I was horrified when I learned that SB 5 potentially could leave the state with only five abortion clinics, and they were all in major metropolitan areas.
I thought, "What is going to happen when a woman working two jobs out in West Texas finds out she is pregnant?" Maybe her pregnancy was an accident. Maybe she was raped. Whatever the reason, she is scared and desperate to terminate her pregnancy. And she has a legal right to do it.
But whether she would be able to exercise this right was another question.
Had SB 5 passed, this woman would have had to take time off from work and drive hours to find one of the five clinics to perform her abortion. Once she found a clinic, she would have to obtain a sonogram and wait 24 hours to obtain her abortion. This young woman would then take a pill at the clinic, wait 48 additional hours and then come back to the clinic to take an additional pill. This young woman has been away from her home and her job for at least four days. That's no small matter in any instance, but it makes it impossible if she doesn't have the monetary means to leave her job for an extended period of time.
I don't see how limiting access and choice is anything more than hardship and harassment, especially to the poor.
We advocates of reproductive choices often say that we want to make abortion safe, legal and rare. While those who push anti-choice legislation will likely never agree with us on the "legal" part, I think we can agree on the other two. But the "rare" part cannot come from making abortion inaccessible. It needs to come from making it unnecessary.
That can happen through better health care. If the state is truly concerned with women's and children's health, why do we cut women off from Medicaid 60 days post-partum?
So yesterday, I stood with Wendy while she filibustered a bill that would cut access to women's health care. And while the lieutenant governor may believe that his constituents who were in their Capitol were an "unruly mob using Occupy Wall Street tactics," I believe that these Texans were only using their voices to be heard after days of being shut off. They were venting their anger after seeing the rules of the Senate cast aside by the Republican leadership, as well as possible violations of state law.
They were taking a stand for a constitutionally protected right, and I encourage them to never sit down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
