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 opinion
you 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment