Archive

Reuters blog archive

from Alison Frankel:

On one-year Windsor anniversary, 9th Circuit delivers best gay rights gift

Sometimes, the best way to understand the broad implications of a court's decision isn't to read the ruling itself but rather the dissent. That was certainly true a year ago, when Justice Antonin Scalia attacked the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Windsor v. U.S., which struck down federal prohibitions on same-sex marriage as an unconstitutional intrusion on the equal rights of gays and lesbians. The majority's ruling was carefully constrained, but a furious Scalia predicted that the stirring language of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion would reverberate more loudly in the lower courts than the actual holding. As we now know from decisions all over the country striking down restrictions on same-sex marriage, Scalia was right.

So if you want to know just how monumental a gay-rights ruling the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued Tuesday, just two days short of Windsor's one-year anniversary, take a look at the dissent written by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain and joined by Judges Jay Bybee and Carlos Bea. O'Scannlain posits that his colleagues' decision in the case, GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories, "precludes the survival under the federal Constitution of long-standing laws treating marriage as the conjugal union between a man and a woman." But it's even more drastic than that, according to the dissent: The appellate decision has changed the standard for evaluating all laws targeting gays and lesbians, the dissent said, "with far-reaching -- and mischievous -- consequences."

If the 9th Circuit dissenters turn out to be as good at fortune-telling as Scalia, states in the Western swath of this country -- California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and Alaska -- won't be able to curtail equal rights based on sexual orientation, even if the states think they have a rational basis for doing so. That's a much farther-reaching holding even than the 10th Circuit's decision Wednesday that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional -- and for gay rights proponents, it's quite an anniversary present.

It's true, as the 9th Circuit dissenters pointed out, that the 9th Circuit used an unusual vehicle to deliver it. The underlying case, as I've explained in a previous column, involved a pharmaceutical antitrust dispute in which GlaxoSmithKline accused Abbott Laboratories of illegally jacking up the price of some HIV medications. When the case went to trial, Abbott's lawyers struck a prospective juror whose responses to questions suggested that he might be gay. GSK appealed the jury verdict because it said (among other things) that Abbott violated Supreme Court precedent on improper discrimination in jury selection.

from Data Dive:

Gay marriage is still in limbo in Wisconsin

The march toward legalizing gay marriage across the country continued last Friday, when a federal judge declared Wisconsin’s ban on it unconstitutional. Clerks in two counties started issuing marriage licenses on Friday, according to Reuters.

However, gay marriage in Wisconsin is still in limbo. Over the weekend there were still some questions related to whether the ruling would take effect immediately. The Wisconsin judge did not include a mandate to begin issuing licenses as judges in other states have done, and the state attorney general filed an emergency motion asking the judge to stay her ruling pending appeal. The stay hasn’t yet been granted — there will be a hearing this afternoon.

from Blogs Dashboard:

Big wins for the freedom to marry. Now let’s finish the job.

Reggie Stanley (R) and Rocky Galloway embrace as they are married in Washington.

Nearly two years after we were pronounced married by New York state in front of our family and friends, my husband and I are finally married in the eyes of the federal government.

Okay, it took an order from the Supreme Court. But Cheng and I are celebrating anyway.

from The Great Debate:

A victory for gays and for families

I didn’t expect to cry on my wedding day. But there I was last September, in my Cape Cod backyard, trussed up in suit and tie, waiting for my soon-to-be husband at our makeshift altar, and the tears came. I wish I could say they were two camera-ready teardrops, wending their way down my left cheek. But no. In reality, I got a monsoon -- I was a sobbing, near-hyperventilating mess. The importance of what we were doing had just hit me: We were pledging, in public symbol and sacred promise, to build and sustain a life together.

When I began to read what Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court’s majority, I realized that he agreed. In eviscerating DOMA, he also wrote a stirring defense of the very institution that many conservatives believe is threatened by gay marriage: the American family.

from The Great Debate:

Big wins for the freedom to marry. Now let’s finish the job.

Reggie Stanley (R) and Rocky Galloway embrace as they are married in Washington.

Nearly two years after we were pronounced married by New York state in front of our family and friends, my husband and I are finally married in the eyes of the federal government.

Okay, it took an order from the Supreme Court. But Cheng and I are celebrating anyway.

from Mark Leonard:

Protests in France are more than a battle over culture

In many of the same French squares and streets that were occupied in the general strikes of 1968, a new generation has been re-inventing the art of protest for the age of Twitter. Their focus has been opposing a law that would legalize gay marriage, which is expected to pass a final legislative hurdle on Tuesday. Although the protests may be misdirected, they are a symptom of the crisis this generation faces in influencing its government and economy in France.

For a generation that is staring at a "lost decade" of economic stagnation and joblessness, this protest seems like a form of escapism to observers. With economic and political spheres surrendered to global markets and German politicians, the protesters may be trying to reclaim ownership of the cultural sphere by seizing on the gay marriage proposal. This desire for individuality within the euro zone was, in fact, the same effort that led the French government to introduce the proposal in the first place.

from Nicholas Wapshott:

Gay marriage and the triumph of ’60s

Whatever the Supreme Court decides, it seems same sex marriage is here to stay. As the cover of Time put it, “Gay Marriage Already Won. The Supreme Court Hasn’t Made Up Its Mind – But America Has.”

Even some social conservative rabble-rousers have conceded defeat. Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, who in the past has compared gay unions to marrying a goat or a dolphin, has flipped, saying his views have “evolved.” “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly said last week. “The other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.” Rush Limbaugh, too, is reluctantly resigned to the change. “I don’t care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable,” he said.

from Reihan Salam:

Waiting on the world to change

As the Supreme Court weighed arguments over California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act last week, the cultural and political momentum in favor of same-sex civil marriage was extraordinary. One after another, prominent Democrats who had been reluctant to endorse same-sex civil marriage switched their positions, recognizing that they were in grave danger of being “on the wrong side of history” (a phrase we’re hearing a lot lately). Some of the reversals have been surprising only because they’ve come so late, as in the case of Hillary Clinton. Others, like Senators Jon Tester and Kay Hagan, were surprising because they represent states, Montana and North Carolina, where same-sex unions aren’t recognized.

But this rush among politicians, including a small but growing number of Republicans, to back same-sex civil marriage won’t settle the issue. Assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t decide to invalidate the laws of the 37 states that limit civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, 31 of which have constitutional amendments to that effect, this debate will go on for many years. And we’re already starting to see the contours of what comes next ‑ a battle between those fighting to return cultural values to what they were before the sexual revolution, and those convinced that there is no turning back.

from Alison Frankel:

Gay marriage, voters’ rights and the thorny Prop 8 standing problem

On Tuesday morning at the U.S. Supreme Court, Charles Cooper of Cooper and Kirk was no more than a sentence into his spiel on the sanctity of traditional marriage when Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted with the request that he first address a more prosaic issue: Do Cooper's clients, as leading proponents of the 2008 California ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage, even have standing to defend the initiative, known as Proposition 8, in federal court? By the time oral arguments concluded more than an hour later, it seemedlikelier than not that the court would avoid a sweeping ruling on equal protection under federal law for gays and lesbians - and that they'd do it via a finding that Cooper's clients did not have standing to bring an appeal.

That holding, which was advocated by lawyers for the same-sex couples who sued to invalidate Prop 8, would assure gays and lesbians the right to get married in California. But it would also implicate some difficult issues that the Supreme Court has not previously addressed. What qualifies someone to act as an agent of the state for the purposes of defending a ballot initiative? If state officials choose not to defend a law passed by the voters, may private citizens who backed the initiative act on the state's behalf? And if the law's private proponents don't have federal standing, does that mean state officials have the de facto ability to undo voter-passed laws they don't support? If the Supreme Court answers these questions in its Prop 8 decision, the ruling may end up being better remembered for setting precedent on standing, stage agency and ballot initiatives than for civil rights.

from Photographers' Blog:

A family with two moms

Chicago, Illinois

By Jim Young

Ava and Jaidon have two moms. Theresa Volpe is “mommy” and her partner Mercedes Santos is “mama”.

GALLERY: TWO MOMS, TWO KIDS, ONE FAMILY

They have been together for over 20 years. They met each other while working for the same publishing company in Chicago in 1992. Theresa says that Mercedes is the person she was meant to spend her life with, she just happens to be another woman.

  •