Supreme Court grants Obama administration the right to argue (against) same-sex marriage ban

[Fearless]

In an order earlier today, Supreme Court justice ruled that US Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli will be given speaking time during the oral court sessions held on March 26th 2013.

In its request for the Solicitor General to be granted the right to address the court, the US Department of Justice wrote:- “The President and Attorney General have determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny for equal protection purposes.”

“Private respondents, committed gay and lesbian couples, seek the full benefits, obligations, and social recognition conferred by the institution of marriage. California law provides to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners all the legal incidents of marriage, but it nonetheless denies them the designation of marriage allowed to their opposite-sex counterparts. Particularly in those circumstances, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from marriage does not substantially further any important governmental interest. Proposition 8 thus violates equal protection.”

“Seven other states provide, through comprehensive domestic partnership or civil union laws, same-sex couples rights substantially similar to those available to married couples, yet still restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/16/supreme-court-grants-obama-administration-the-right-to-argue-same-sex-marriage-is-unconstitutional/

----------------------

It's about damn time!

[fairfaxvadem]

1. Lord, he is not that great in front of the bench...

Please don't think I believe he is not qualified. Probably writes legal briefs like no one's business. But some of his previous appearances have been less than stellar. He knows his stuff and then "poof" - he chokes in prime time...I'm not sure oral arguments is his strong suit.

As if I would do so much better, yeah, I know...easy to be a critic.

Come on SG! Knock this one out of the park buddy.

[LonePirate]

2. It's looking more and more likely that marriage equality will be coming to many states this summer

I know people keep saying this is a conservative court and the USSC never gets ahead of the population on social issues; but this case seems different to me. I not only believe Prop 8 is going down; but I think this court will also replace all of the civil unions\domestic partnerships with marriage equality. I'm even starting to think all of those state marriage bans will be tossed as well in what could be a 6-3 decision. The addition of the DOJ to this case nationalizes it so I have a tough time believing the court will say residents of one state have rights that residents of other states do not. I can't wait for conservative heads to explode if this happens. They may hate the ACA but they hate LGBT Americans even more. It may be a wonderful summer with weddings across the land.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. Who are the 6 you speak of?

By my math we only have three solid votes on our side.

[LonePirate]

4. All but Alito, Scalia and Thomas

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Would be nice, but unlikely.

We'll probably lose Kagan and maybe Roberts, which would mean a 5-4 loss. We need both Kennedy and Roberts to eke out a 5-4 win.

[LonePirate]

7. We're not losing Kagan or any of the three other liberals.

Kennedy will maintain his gay-friendly decisions and Roberts' will keep his eye on history as he won't want to be on the wrong side of it.

I do not share the rampant pessimism that seems to be pervasive on the web.

[Pab Sungenis]

8. Kagan does not believe in the right to marriage.

I see no way she votes for us.

[LonePirate]

10. You honestly think she's going to uphold the bigoted Prop 8 law despite it violating the 14th Amend?

I do not think there is any way she votes to uphold Prop 8 or DOMA. I expect her questioning during next week's cases will be quite indicative of how she will vote against both Prop 8 and DOMA.

I am standing by my 6-3 prediction pending next week's arguments.

[Pab Sungenis]

11. If you don't believe in a right to marriage

then Prop 8 has to stand. And DOMA is questionable at best.

[LonePirate]

12. I look forward to you changing your mind after next week's arguments.

There is no way - none whatsoever - that Kagan votes to uphold Prop 8 or DOMA.

On the surface, these cases may be about marriage; but in reality, these cases are about the government treating classes of people differently, which is unconstitutional. I'm sure Kagan understands this as she is not the backwards thinking bigot that Scalia is, for example.

[Pab Sungenis]

13. As I said, I pray you're right.

But as it is, we only have her words to go on.

And considering that we also thought there was "no way - none whatsoever" that she would vote against Union rights or against the Fourth Amendment....

[ShadowLiberal]

6. Courts have come out ahead of public opinion on social issues before

To name a few examples of this.

-Bans on interracial marriage started to get successfully challenged when a merge 10% of the population supported interracial marriage.

-The US Supreme Court struck down Interracial marriage bans nationwide when 70% of the nation still opposed interracial marriage.

-Abortion rights were also ahead of their time when you look at the laws on the books at the times, every single state had laws against/restricting access to abortion that were overturned in Roe Vs Wade.

That's not to say that the court doesn't at times wait public opinion catches up to make a decision like this.

I personally suspect the court will rule narrowly on DOMA and Prop-8 for the moment, strike down Prop-8 in CA, and the Federal government has to recognize marriages by gay couples at the very least in states where gay marriage is legal.

I don't see them making a huge sweeping ruling in either direction.

[Pab Sungenis]

9. Striking down DOMA = marriage everywhere.

DOMA is the only thing stopping Full Faith and Credit for our marriages now. If DOMA goes, then states don't have to perform our marriages but they can't ban them or refuse to recognize them.

[MNBrewer]

14. and probably means another SCOTUS case where they explicitly address Full Faith and Credit