Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy SCOTUS hearing gay marriage cases is such a big deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/07/here-comes-scotus-on-marriage-equalit/Why SCOTUS hearing gay marriage cases is such a big deal
Posted by Jonathan Bernstein on December 7, 2012 at 6:03 pm
The Supreme Court today, in a somewhat surprising decision, took not one but two cases having to do with the fight over marriage equality. This is a very big deal, and not just because it may well mean the end of key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The outcome could set the overall Constitutional boundaries on gay marriage for a generation or more.
The first one, which had been expected, is a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act the federal law which prevents, for example, legally married same-sex couples in states such as New York and Iowa from getting the same federal benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. As E.J. Graff has described it, the issue there is: Does the federal government have the right to pick and choose which state marriages it will recognize, or is that unconstitutional, violating the U.S. Constitutions promise that each American will be protected equally by the law? Marriage equality advocates believe they have a pretty good chance of winning.
The second case is a bit of a surprise. The Court accepted the California case about Proposition 8 (which defines marriage as between a man and a woman). Here the issue will be more basic: does the Equal Protection clause mean that if state governments recognize any marriages, they must recognize all same-sex marriages? Marriage equality advocates are less confident on this one. But its certainly possible that the Supremes could rule narrowly, finding some reason to cover only the California law with their ruling instead of deciding something that would either invalidate all state bans or establish a strong precedent that states can do what they wish in this area.
Even if the outcome doesnt resolve all underlying issues, it will almost certainly decide what course this continuing fight will take in the near future. Will marriage continue to mainly proceed in state-by-state battles, or will it (also?) move to Congress as a federal issue? If the court strikes down DOMA, but narrowly, Republicans could try to pass a new version. If it doesnt strike down DOMA, Dems will likely try to repeal it. And if the decision winds up promising future court fights, then gay and lesbian issues may move to higher importance in battles over the next set of judicial nominations. At the very least the Court will probably determine the nature of this ongoing battle going forward.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1379 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why SCOTUS hearing gay marriage cases is such a big deal (Original Post)
babylonsister
Dec 2012
OP
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)1. K&R !!! n/t
love_katz
(2,584 posts)2. Kicking.
I will admit I don't have a lot of trust in the Supremes....just have to hope that this all comes out right for our LGBT friends and relations.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)3. This is huge. I hope for a good outcome.
I don't like the way states battle over basic human rights.
SunSeeker
(51,697 posts)4. I have a good feeling about this since Ted Olson is arguing against Prop. 8.
I think Ted Olson, who was U.S. Solicitor General under Bush, will have the court's ear. He is one of them. I have wondered why Olson took on this case, and this cause. Perhaps he wants to rehabilitate his legacy after Bush v. Gore (Olson was the Republican attorney who argued for Bush in that travesty of a case). Either that or the life-long Democrat he married in 2006 has something to do with it....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Olson
babylonsister
(171,090 posts)5. I didn't know Olson was arguing this again; that is good! nt