Tag Archives: Proposition 8

WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT? – DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT V FIFTH AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION

03/25/2013 Tom Hank

View Supreme Court of the United States in a larger map

This week in Washington DC, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday 26th and Wednesday March 27, for and against the Defense of Marriage Act 1996 (DOMA) and Proposition 8 in 2 separate cases, before 9 Supreme Court Judges, who will listen to 50 minutes of arguments from both sides and then make a final decision over the coming months.

Tuesday 26th – at 10am – Hollingsworth v Perry, which is the California Marriage Proposition 8 discussion, brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER).

Wednesday 27th – at 10am – Windsor v. United States brought by the ACLU, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP with super lawyer Roberta Kaplan from their New York office leading the arguments.
For more information about Windsor click here

The Gay, & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders group (GLAD), located in Boston, MA, under the direction of Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto, have coordinated the amicus strategy, (meaning sympathisers of the strategy write to support the legal case arguments), for the challenge to DOMA in the Supreme Court.

Essentially the arguments will revolve around the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is being challenged in separate individual cases as not standing up to higher scrutiny, and therefore controversial to the principles of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution on equal rights and protection under the law.

The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property,” without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws”.

The challenge appears to have been brought as a result of cases where gay and lesbian individuals have not had the same protection under the law as married heterosexual couples, in the event of death of a partner and their right to inherit their estate.

On Tuesday morning, lawyers will present their arguments challenging the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage for support/opposition of Proposition 8 in the case of Hollingsworth v Perry.

On Wednesday morning lawyers for Windsor v United States will argue before the 9 Supreme Court Justices on the brief:

“Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines the term “marriage” for all purposes under federal law, including the provision of federal benefits, as “only a legal union between one man and one wom- an as husband and wife.” 1 U.S.C. 7. It similarly defines the term “spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Ibid.

The question presented is:

Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their state.

The Justices final decision is expected in June, though some opinion is expected by their initial private vote this Friday.

GLAD has two other challenges to DOMA, Gill v. OPM and Pedersen v. OPM, which will be held pending a ruling on Windsor.

WASHINGTON DC – SUPREME COURT CONVENES AT 10am TUESDAY TO HEAR DOMA ARGUMENTS – HOW DOES THE SYSTEM WORK?

03/25/2013 Tom Hank

An article published by the American Foundation for Equal Rights gives excellent insight into how the Supreme Court Judges proceed, as they hear arguments around the California Proposition 8 case on Tuesday 26th at 10am and the Defence of Marriage Act on Wednesday, taking place at the Supreme Court in Washington DC.

The nine Justices are seated by seniority. The Chief Justice occupies the center chair, the senior Associate Justice sits to his right, the second senior to his left, and so on, alternating right and left by seniority.

Following Along

Audio of the proceedings will be made available shortly after oral argument concludes on each day since cameras and love updates are prohibited from inside the courtroom. The Supreme Court has said that audio will be released by 1 p.m. EDT on Tuesday and 2 p.m. EDT on Wednesday. Since seating inside the Court is extremely limited, it is on a first come basis.

Proceedings

Shortly before 10:00 a.m., the Justices will meet in the Robing Room. This is where they will all shake hands and don their robes.

At 10:00 a.m., oral argument will begin. As the Justices enter the courtroom, the Marshal of the Court will intone:

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!

The Chief Justice will call the case and invite Charles J. Cooper, attorney for the Proponents of Proposition 8, to the lectern. He has 30 minutes to make his argument.

Once Mr. Cooper has concluded, the Chief Justice will invite AFER lead co-counsel Ted Olson to the lectern which will begin his 20 minutes to make his argument. He may choose to reserve some of his time for a rebuttal after the argument for the United States has been compeated.

After Mr. Olson has completed his argument, the Chief Justice will invite Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. to the lectern. The Solicitor General has 10 minutes to make his argument for the United States as amicus curiae, or “friend of the Court”. He will be speaking in support of AFER’s Plaintiffs.

If Mr. Cooper reserved time for rebuttal, he will then have the remainder of his time to address the Court.

The case is submitted for consideration once the oral arguments have been completed. The Justices are expected to vote at their private Conference on Friday, March 29. A final decision should be published by the end of June.

The Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases that deal with marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans this week.

On Tuesday, March 26, the Court will hear oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry,. This is AFER’s federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8. Two couples, Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, are represented by Ted Olson and David Boies. Mr Olson will argue that Proposition 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Learn more about the Perry case >

On Wednesday, March 27, the Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is the 1996 law that prevents the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples in states with marriage equality. The case came about because Edie Windsor, an 83-year-old widow, was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes after her wife died. This is a tax she would not have had to pay if she was married to a man. Ms. Windsor claims that DOMA violates her right to equal protection of the laws and is represented by the ACLU.

PROPOSITION 8 SUPREME COURT HEARING: LINE FORMING

03/23/2013 Rachael Maddow

The Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the first of two cases on Tuesday. The line began at 4 p.m. on Thursday by paid line stander John Spears. The line formed a full 114 hours in advance, which is even earlier than the line for the Obamacare case, which started about 72 hours before the hearing.

The hearings of oral arguments this week will include California’s Proposition 8, which addresses gay marriage, on Tuesday and the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday. According to the Supreme Court Hearing List, Proposition 8 is to have about and hour for their arguments and the Defense of Marriage Act Jurisdiction will have 50 minutes and Merits will have an hour for their arguments.

News

SAN FRANCISCO: Gay marriage ban backers seek Supreme Court review

08/01/2012 Chris Cuomo

Those who are trying to ban same sex marriages through the law, namely Proposition 8 are pursuing their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2008 California voters approved a ban on same sex marriage through Proposition 8, but the legal battle just started. The latest decision came from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which is based in San Francisco. They had ruled the Proposition Unconstitutional.

If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to take the case this will allow same sex marriages to resume in California.

Source article SAN FRANCISCO: Gay marriage ban backers seek Supreme Court review | Nation | Macon.com.

News

Illinois Attorney General joins in the fight for gay marriage

06/18/2012 Bill Maher 1 Comment

In a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a ban on same sex marriage Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) has officially sided with the plaintiffs’. After Cook County refused to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, a group of couples came together to file a lawsuit against Cook County. Madigan has filed papers joining the lawsuit.

Madigan, as attorney general, is meant to uphold the state law. By denouncing the state’s law it begs to question, who will be arguing on behalf of the law? As in the case of Proposition 8 in California, when Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) opposed the state’s constitution to legalise same-sex marriage (despite a state referendum upholding Proposition 8), are we again seeing one individual using their position to change the definition of marriage for all?

In California the legality of Proposition 8 was upheld, there were those in place who could oppose Jerry Brown’s plan. However, in Illinois there is no credible force to fight for marriage. The state’s legislature is controlled by democrats, who overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage, and the Speaker of the House is Michael Madigan, Lisa Madigan’s father.

The details of the case are taken from MetroWeekly:

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) will be joining Lambda Legal and the ACLU in arguing that Illinois’s civil unions law does not meet the state’s constitutional guarantees of equal protection, raising the question of what the Cook County clerk of courts — the named defendant — will do in its response to the lawsuits.

The move came just two days after Lambda Legal and the ACLU each filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the civil union law.

In a pair of June 1 filings in Darby v. Orr and Lazaro v. Orr, which were reviewed by Metro Weekly, the attorney general’s office has requested to intervene in the cases, which it says is appropriate because state law permits a court to allow the state to intervene when the validity of a state law is at issue. The Attorney General’s Office is not requesting to intervene to defend the laws, however, which is the usual reason for such intervention.

In the requests, Madigan writes, “Petitioner respectfully requests the right to intervene in this case to present the Court with arguments that explain why the challenged statutory provisions do not satisfy the guarantee of equality under the Illinois Constitution.”

On June 25, the Attorney General’s Office will make the request to intervene in Darby, which was brought by Lambda Legal. On June 26, the office will make the intervention request in Lazaro, which was brought by the ACLU.

The move sets up the unusual question of who will be defending the law in the lawsuits. Although the named defendant is Cook County Clerk of Courts David Orr (D) (who is represented in legal challenges by Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez (D)), Madigan is the chief legal officer of the state and her view that the state law is unconstitutional is significant.

THE PROPHECY CHRONICLES