Tag Archives: Same-sex marriage

6Dems finally support marriage equality and more


Give him 2 minutes to explain why nobody should be agreeing to weaken Social Security. WATCH:

Robert Reich On Why You Shouldn’t Accept Chained CPI From President Obama Or Anybody

This is powerful and changing our media landscape. WATCH:

Wow. Fox News Is Adopting Something Socially Responsible Before The New York Times Does?

See who they are and help get them to change their minds!

UPDATED: Last 6 Democratic Holdouts On Marriage Equality Pushed By MoveOn Members

The Senate Evolves


ThinkProgress War Room

50 Faces of Equality

The Senate is not known for moving quickly, but the past few days have seen a major sprint toward marriage equality among Senate Democrats and even two Republicans. With the evolution of two more senators, Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Tom Carper (D-DE), just today, there are now 50 senators who support marriage equality. With marriage equality-supporting Vice President Biden casting the tie-breaking vote, that means a majority of the Senate is now in favor of equality.

Evening Brief: Important Stories That You Might’ve Missed

Exxon’s duck-killing tar sands pipeline won’t pay taxes to oil spill fund.

We know precious little about tar sands oil.

Kansas Republicans mock rape exceptions for abortion restrictions as “little gotcha amendments.”

UN approves Arms Trade Treaty opposed by Syria, Iran, North Korea, and the NRA.

GOP Congressman: If we limit high-capacity magazines, same-sex marriage will lead to bestiality.

Why the LGBT undocumented need immigration reform.

Two-thirds of Louisianans oppose Bobby Jindal’s plan to raise taxes on the poor, slash them on the rich.

Austerity pushes EU unemployment to another record high.

The president launches $100 MILLION initiative to map the brain.

Marriage Equality


By  ThinkProgress War Room

All Eyes on the Supreme Court

As we discussed yesterday, this week the Supreme Court  is hearing oral arguments in two historic marriage equality cases. Today, the High Court heard arguments about California’s Proposition 8. Thousands of supporters of equality turned out to make their voices heard.

Here’s a few snaps of today’s action outside the Supreme Court:

There were plenty of colorful signs at today’s rally. Here’s a few of our favorites:

You can check out many, many more here.

In addition to being outside the Court, ThinkProgress Justice Editor and constitutional analyst Ian Millhiser was inside the room this morning. You should definitely check out his full analysis of today’s argument.

Evening Brief: Important Stories That You Might’ve Missed

Justice Scalia’s embarrassingly intolerant attitude toward gays.

In other Supreme Court news, the police can’t bring drug-sniffing dogs to your door.

On Fox News, Amanda Knox got twice as much attention today as marriage equality.

Ten Democratic senators who still say no to marriage equality.

North Dakota essentially banned abortion today, but it has even bigger threats to access waiting in the wings.

Six Democratic senators on the fence about universal background checks.

Study: refusing to expand Medicaid could leave 200,000 low-income veterans uninsured.

Organizing for Action is pushing for public financing of political campaigns in New York state.

Will the Supreme Court Say I Do?


By  ThinkProgress War Room

Supreme Court to Take Up Historic Marriage Equality Cases

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the first of two historic cases dealing with marriage equality. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases and how the High Court could come down.

Case #1 (Tuesday): Hollingsworth v. Perry

At issue: California’s Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban approved by California voters in 2008.

Legal Questions:

  • Is it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for California to prohibit marriage equality?
  • California’s governor and attorney general stopped defending the measure several years ago, so a group of cities and Prop. 8 proponents stepped in to defend the law in their place. The Supreme Court must decide if it was even proper for this group to have been allowed to do so in the first place.

Possible Outcomes:

  • Marriage equality for everyone, everywhere
  • Marriage equality in some places now, everywhere else later. One route proposed by the Obama administration would result in marriage equality right now in California and other states that have civil union laws that are essentially marriage in everything but name. Legally speaking, if California’s ban is deemed unconstitutional, bans in other states would then also be difficult to defend. As the president said recently, he can’t think of any reason why any state’s ban should be valid.
  • Marriage equality just in California. The Court could tailor a narrow opinion that invalidates Prop. 8, but doesn’t really advance jurisprudence in a way that is particularly useful anywhere else.
  • Marriage equality in California, probably. The Court could use the second question about legal standing to dodge making a decision on the merits, which would leave the district court decision invalidating Prop. 8 in place. There are some unresolved questions about how this particular approach would play out.
  • No marriage equality in California, at least for now. The Court could reverse the lower courts and leave Prop. 8 in place. The only way it could then be undone is by voters through yet another ballot measure or in a future Supreme Court case heard by a more progressive Court. A poll out last week found that 61 percent of California’s now support marriage equality, making this route likely to succeed if also costly, time-consuming, and limited only to California.

For more details on how the Court could strike down Prop. 8, check out ThinkProgress’ legal analysis HERE.

Case #2 (Wednesday): United States v. Windsor

At Issue: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Legal Questions:

  • Whether Section 3 of DOMA, the part of the law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples for purposes of taxation, federal benefits, and more than 1,000 other rights or responsibilities, violates the legal married same couples’ guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
  • As with the Prop. 8 case, there are technical legal questions about whether the Supreme Court is even allowed to hear the case. First, can the Court hear the case since the executive branch already agrees with lower courts that the law is unconstitutional? After the Department of Justice stopped defending the law, House Republicans took up the cause of defending discrimination and have spent millions of taxpayer dollars doing so. The Court must decide if House Republicans are allowed, legally speaking, to stand in for the executive branch.

Possible Outcomes:

  • Marriage equality for everyone. The Court could simply rule that DOMA is unconstitutional because everyone has a constitutional right to marry the partner of their choice.
  • Marriage equality in some places. The Court could strike down DOMA and allow legally married same-sex couples to receive the same federal benefits as straight couples, but not rule on whether there is a broader constitutional right to marriage equality. Depending on how strongly worded such a decision is, it could make it difficult to defend other anti-gay laws and state marriage bans. Another version of this outcome could be decided on the basis of the Tenth Amendment, but this would establish a highly unfortunate precedent that could be dangerous for the social safety net.
  • Muddled mess. If the Court decides that it lacks jurisdiction for either or both of the reasons mentioned above, nobody is quite sure what exactly will happen. It’s possible that DOMA could remain valid everywhere but New York and New England (the federal circuit courts where the challenges were initiated). Another theory says the Obama administration could refuse to enforce the law, but then that still leaves open the possibility that a future anti-gay President Rubio could revive the law.
  • No change. The Court could disagree with the various lower courts that invalidated DOMA and find it to be constitutional. In this case, the only ways to get rid of DOMA would be a future case before a less conservative Supreme Court or Congressional repeal of DOMA. Senators and members of the House have already introduced a bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, to accomplish the latter.

For more details on how the Court could dump DOMA, check out ThinkProgress’ legal analysis HERE.

Stay tuned: ThinkProgress reporters will be both inside and outside the Supreme Court tomorrow and we’ll be bringing you live updates.

Get Involved: Sign Our Brief Telling the Supreme Court to Dump DOMA

Our partners at the Center for American Progress signed onto a legal brief against DOMA. Will you support their brief by signing on, and say that you won’t stand for the unconstitutional discrimination against LGBT people?

Sign HERE to tell the Supreme Court that DOMA must go.

Evening Brief: Important Stories That You Might’ve Missed

Former Bush administration official slams top social conservative over opposition to marriage equality.

Virginia Democratic senator backs marriage equality.

Watch: the most compelling case for marriage equality in under a minute.

Another NFL player speaks out for marriage equality.

Thirteen offensive things Justice Scalia has compared homosexuality to.

Majority of Ohioans back marriage equality, want to overturn state’s 2004 ban on marriage equality.

Missouri Democratic senator backs marriage equality.

Puff pieces profiling paid marriage equality opponents plague the mainstream media.

The NRA is flooding Newtown with robocalls opposing gun violence prevention measures.

R74


$3 million.

That’s how much money the opponents of the freedom to marry are raising to repeal marriage equality in Washington, and fight it in other states. And the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, has quite a history of using that money to scare and mislead voters about what the freedom to marry means.

And, believe me — NOM is just beginning to drown Washington with campaign cash. Just last night, we learned that they’d transferred ANOTHER $400,000 into Washington.

Please click here to contribute $3 to fight these ads now — if we wait until they’re on the air in Washington, it’ll be too late.

After I emailed you about NOM’s campaign to — and I quote — “protect marriage from Barack Obama and his wealthy homosexual lobbyists”, some of our supporters suggested that I tell you exactly what these $3 million dollars in anonymous donations are going to buy.

In 2008, NOM ran an ad called “Princess” which featured a young girl telling her mom “what she learned in school today” — which was that “A prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!” You know the argument by now: that somehow, allowing all loving couples to marry will upend our schools and threaten religious freedom.  It was a lie then and it’s a lie now.

Donate now!

These are the kind of false attacks that we KNOW are coming.

We know, because the same organization, it’s same shadowy anonymous donors, and the same spin doctors that put together this ad are bankrolling — and leading — our opposition in Washington.

It worked in California — but we can stop them in Washington, if you click here to contribute $3 right now.

Sorry to pollute your inbox with this, but you deserve to know.

Zach Silk Campaign Manager Washington United for Marriage