Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on Thursday he has not given his views on the constitutionality of gay marriage itself.
“I haven’t expressed my view about gay marriage,” Scalia, a noted conservative said, adding that the decision itself only applied to a narrow piece of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
“The issue in the DOMA case was not whether the Constitution requires states to allow gay marriage. That was not the question at all,” Scalia said at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, outside Boston. “The question is whether Congress can define marriage in all of the statues that Congress enacted to mean only marriage between a man and a woman.”
In his dissenting opinion on that ruling, Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, wrote that the majority ignored procedural obstacles he said should have prevented the court from taking up the matter in the first place.
Scalia does expect to see the issue back before SCOTUS.
“I’m waiting for the second shoe to drop,” said Scalia, the longest-serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the first Supreme Court member to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony Saturday when she officiates at the Washington wedding of Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser.
The gala wedding of Kaiser and economist John Roberts at the performing arts center brings together the nation’s highest court and the capital’s high society and will mark a new milepost in recognition of same-sex unions.
Ginsburg and Kaiser are close friends. She is perhaps the Supreme Court’s most ardent supporter of the fine arts, especially opera. Kaiser, 59, has been at the helm of the Kennedy Center since 2001 and is an internationally recognized expert in arts management and one of Washington’s most influential civic leaders.
“I can’t imagine someone I’d rather be married by” than Ginsburg, Kaiser said in an interview.
Umm, hello? A US Supreme Court justice? Yeah, pretty fab officiant, there.
Although, I will say – when my husband Michael and I got married in Toronto in 2003, the legality of same-sex marriage was new. But Senior Justice Lauren Marshall generously agreed to marry Michael and I. And it was as special and memorable as any wedding ever could be.
AND – being the senior justice, she had the ‘best’ courtroom, which happened to be the courtroom the movie CHICAGO the Musical was shot in. So we knew we were in the right place… 🙂
Congrats to Michael Kaiser and John Roberts. I hope your day is as special as mine was.
Well, here’s a novel courtroom defense: Paula Deen’s lawyers are attempting to use last weeks Prop 8 decision from SCOTUS to have the lawsuit against her and her brother dismissed.
A former employee is suing Deen and her brother Earl “Bubba” Hiers for reportedly racist and sexist behavior in the workplace, their restaurant, Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House in Savannah, Ga. However, Deen’s lawyers claim that the complainant is a white woman, so she does not have standing in court to claim that she was affected by racism, Politico reports.
The lawyers are using the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss Perry v. Hollingsworth last week, declaring that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not have legal standing to appeal the case in court.
Rick Santorum thinks the tide of marriage equality can still be turned back, and that the Supreme Court ruling overturning DOMA renders marriage in its current form “unconstitutional.”
But don’t worry. He’s wrong about things all the time. He’s used to it.
In all the hoopla, one of the most important people to speak on the repeal of DOMA is Edie Windsor, who brought the case to court when her wife died and she was hit with a $360,000+ tax bill because the federal government didn’t recognize her marriage.
I’ve been strangely numb today about the rulings. I’m excited and happy, but it’s almost not real to me. It wasn’t until I saw this clip of Edie speak today that I felt something really moving about what has happened on this historic day.
This is history. For decades we’ll look back and know how important this day is, and how it will lead us to our future.
And, in great part, because this senior citizen who lived most of her life quietly decided to raise her voice, and in doing so has raised up so many of us.
Hate group leader Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
“By striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is absurd. The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers. For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their ‘marriage?’ This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.
“We are disturbed that the court refused to acknowledge that the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to defend Proposition 8. This distorts the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The Court’s decision allows the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge. Ironically, by refusing to defend the law, California’s executive branch has also denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. – Hate group leader Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
Brian Brown of the ironically-named National Organization for Marriage
“In a miscarriage of justice the US Supreme Court has refused to consider the decision of a single federal court judge to overturn the perfectly legal action of over 7 million California voters who passed Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Supreme Court’s holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws.
“It’s imperative that Congress continue to preserve the right of states to protect true marriage and refuse to recognize faux marriages performed in other states or countries. There is a stench coming from this case that has now stained the Supreme Court. They’ve allowed corrupt politicians and judges to betray the voters, rewarding them for their betrayal. It’s an illegitimate decision. We and millions of other Americans will refuse to accept this rogue decision rewarding corruption.
“We also urge Congress to reject the inevitable attempts to dismantle remaining elements of DOMA, including the right of states to refuse to recognize so-called gay marriages performed elsewhere. The vast majority of American voters have expressed with their votes their desire to maintain marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That decision should be respected and left undisturbed.” – Hate group leader Brian Brown of the National Organization for (some) Marriage
Bryan Fischer, of the hate group American Family Association, says states should ignore the SCOTUS rulings on marriage equality if DOMA is struck down:
Anything short of upholding DOMA, anything short of upholding Prop 8 in California will be a setback for the rule of law, it will be a setback for a constitutional form of government; in fact you can just eliminate the first three words of the Constitution: “We the people.” That will be utterly meaningless if the Supreme Court does not uphold Prop 8 and does not uphold DOMA, period. Anything short of that and the American people have been robbed of the capacity and the right and the authority to be a self-governing people.
…
If the states were to do it, the thirty states that have marriage amendments say, ‘fine, the Supreme Court has issued its ruling, we’re going to ignore it, they have exceeded their authority, we have no obligation. In fact, if we recognize their ruling, we give credence to it, then we are violating the Constitution because the Constitution gives them no authority to do that to us so we have compounded their unconstitutional act with an unconstitutional act of our own.
