Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: Prop 8, DOMA To Receive Hearings
-
The United States Supreme Court will review the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down Proposition 8, a 2008 law which banned gay marriage in California.
The appeals court's ruling was issued in February and found the law unconstitutional.
The court will also hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.
According to SCOTUS Blog, the court is expected to hear arguments in late March and make a decision in late June:
SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog
Arguments in gay marriage cases around Mar 25-27, decision around June 27.
7 Dec 12The AP reports:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.
The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.
The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June.
Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington – and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.
Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.
But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state's constitution.
The biggest potential issue before the justices comes in the dispute over California's Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California's ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation's largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.
In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.
The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.
The other issue the high court will take on involves a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.
Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.
The justices chose for their review the case of 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.
Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.
There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been $0.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
-
very well but sorry I'd like to have also an opinion of yours bears! cum on! U r old enough! Yes!!! U can!
;D
-
Ok,ok bears since it may happen that an elephant is scared by a mouse it could even happen that some bears are scared by a mole dunno ;D
What do yoy think about those 363.000 dollars?
-
:sorry: I did not reply earlier agis been very busy lately.
IMHO most LGBT couples feel married and live life as a married couple. It is only when we come to some legal issue that we encounter problems. The $363,000 dollars is a prime example of these problems. It seems to me that the very root cause of most of these legal issues have as a basis for problems starts with the IRS and tax codes. There is a vast difference between single and married status within these Tax Codes and these differences follow thru to many other Laws,Rules and Regulations when dealing with other Government agencies.
For me and many others, this fight is about equal treatment in these married vs single issues with the Government and its laws currently.
-
:sorry: I did not reply earlier agis been very busy lately.
IMHO most LGBT couples feel married and live life as a married couple. It is only when we come to some legal issue that we encounter problems. The $363,000 dollars is a prime example of these problems. It seems to me that the very root cause of most of these legal issues have as a basis for problems starts with the IRS and tax codes. There is a vast difference between single and married status within these Tax Codes and these differences follow thru to many other Laws,Rules and Regulations when dealing with other Government agencies.
For me and many others, this fight is about equal treatment in these married vs single issues with the Government and its laws currently.
No need to apologize of course :hug2: you are always doing a lot for this forum imo and my jokes often border on the impertinence ;D . Btw I quite agree with you there. Every now and then it even happens one of your political or ideological enemies may prove up to give you a good laugh. On gay marriage in Italy, for instance, one of these straight à la Dongiovanni so said intellectuals of the so said right, Vittorio Sgarbi, once said:
Concerning marriage, to these gays who want it I'd do a really terrible and perfidious thing:
I would bestow it on them.:laugh:
and with that one might start to wonder how much a good deal of difficulties are truly correlated with this poor ill-treated sex… ^-^
