Get PJ Media on your Apple

Same-Sex Marriage Proponents Vow Legal, Legislative Action Depending on SCOTUS Ruling

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she's gathering GOP support and is optimistic that DOMA will be repealed by the end of the year.

by
Rodrigo Sermeño

Bio

June 19, 2013 - 2:33 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court is days away from issuing decisions on two important same-sex marriage cases, which supporters of marriage equality hope will pave the way for a nationwide ruling.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she was optimistic that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be repealed by the end of the year.

“I’m actually quite optimistic we can build the support we need over the next several months,” said Gillibrand at a forum hosted Tuesday by Third Way, a professed centrist think-tank in Washington, D.C.

The Supreme Court is weighing two laws on marriage rights – DOMA and California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The first case, United States v. Windsor, challenges the constitutionality of DOMA – a federal law that defines marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between a man and a woman.

The second case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, brings California’s Proposition 8 – a ballot measure overturning the California Supreme Court’s ruling that determined same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry – before the Supreme Court.

Legal analysts widely expect the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA, but most likely as a federal overreach rather than as a violation of gay couples’ fundamental rights.

Gillibrand told the audience that she plans to push for a legislative repeal of DOMA regardless of the court’s decision. The court will rule only on Section 3, which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage, but not section 2, which allows a state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.

She also asserted that any amendments coming out of the U.S. House of Representatives putting same-sex marriage in jeopardy would face stiff opposition.

Speaking about the role of Senate Republicans for the legislation, Gillibrand said the support of Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Rob Portman (Ohio) has been helpful, and she hopes to recruit Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), who have come out in the past in support of LGBT rights. Murkowski announced Wednesday morning that she supports legalizing same-sex marriage, becoming the third Republican senator openly endorsing the issue.

“We are very close to the 60 votes we need,” Gillibrand said, “closer than most people think.”

David Boies, co-counsel in the Hollingsworth vs. Perry case, said the Supreme Court could decide in several ways in favor of same-sex marriage supporters in the Proposition 8 trial. The court could affirm the lower-court rulings that held Proposition 8 unconstitutional by focusing on aspects that are peculiar to California.

“The Federal Court of Appeals in California agreed with us that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, but they did so without reaching the broad equal protection and due process arguments that we made in the district court. What the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said is that once you grant rights to people you can’t take those rights away without due process,” Boies said.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (25)
All Comments   (25)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"What the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said is that once you grant rights to people you can’t take those rights away without due process,”

This is the problem if the SC grants a "right" to same sex marriage. In other countries it was done legislatively, so it could be reversed if the consequences are disastrous, but if the courts do it here, we will never be able to get rid of it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Not necessarily true. Slavery - the right to own another human being - was the law of the land under the supreme court and now it's not.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
My family watches few TV shows, Warehouse 13, Supernatural, Bones. All of them have homosexual subplots. Add to that the Professors link to the college teacher who made an entire semester a lecture on gay rights and one is left with the feeling of having an agenda shoved down ones throat.

I can’t think of anything I want to ingest needing to be shoved down my throat. I’m not afraid of any private behavior; it’s none of my business. This goes beyond acceptance into brainwashing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The best way to undermine Judeo-Christian culture, upon which America was founded, is to redefine the family unit. It goes without saying, if this is deconstructed, then everything else topples. Now this does not mean that average same sex couples give a damn about such "loftier" designs, but make no mistake, those in powerful positions, chiefly from the revolutionary left, are seeking just that.
In effect, once the traditional foundations of family are eviscerated there is little reason not to accept this and that. In other words, a "collective" of parents taking care of ones children becomes that much easier, and the ushering of socialism is easy peasy. This is not hyperbole. And it is the chief reason why the leadership are gunning for the kiddies - http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/06/19/aside-from-nsas-unfettered-domestic-spying-obamas-goons-are-eyeing-americas-kiddies-how-are-they-doing-it-what-are-they-up-to-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
To wit, breaking down DOMA means EASIER access to generations of kiddies! The radical left - all over the west - is at war with Judeo-Christian constructs. It is that simple.

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The left has been attacking the only biologically sound family unit for decades and same sex marriage is just one more nail in the proverbial coffin. The best defense against an overambitious state is strong, blood-related families. The left understands that (Marx and Engels made it clear).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The ancient and primitive Greeks and Romans crassly valued homosexual relations. But eventually the people wised up and realized that was a mistake, and homosexual activity was again deemed unethical and was basically driven underground.
Now many Democrats and even some Republicans are trying to take us back thousands of years to more primitive and decadent times, despite the fact that thinking people have known for centuries that homosexual activity is immoral and a bad legal precedent. (All the arguments homosexuals use to try to rationalize homosexual activity are seriously flawed.) Some decent, moral people are now being legally discriminated against and penalized by those with rather perverse values. What an upside-down world, where we are supposed to cater to the immoral.
It may come as a surprise to you that some colleges like Harvard now have officially recognized student groups devoted to promoting the acceptance of BDSM---sexually deviant bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism. That's right. If you are a student who likes to smack people around, some colleges like Harvard now have groups for you!
He who has eyes to see, let them see. The "logic" of heterophobic homosexuals is rapidly leading this society down a slippery slope to a more and more aberrant and disordered society. Maybe down the line we'll see "marriage" between straight and homosexual consenting-adult incestuous people! Whoopee! Anyone who thinks this is progress is deluding him/herself. Rome didn't fall in a day. But it did fall.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why are the demands of every little minority given attention and gravitas and why do they have to be acceded to?
A small minority of women want to serve in combat, so the military has to change 10,000 years of warfare the let women serve in combat.
A small minority of pregnancies are caused by rape and incest, therefore every aborted pregnancy is justified.
A small minority of people want to marry someone of the same sex, so we should change an institution as old as civilization to give them what they want.
All these minorities get their way, thanks to the magic of massive propaganda campaigns.
Perhaps, a propaganda campaign exposing propaganda campaign could wise people up.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That's because we are now officially an apartheid country where the minority rules over and orppresses the majority and laws on the books are there to suppress the majority in favor of the minority.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said is that once you grant rights to people you can’t take those rights away without due process

Hold it... the 9th Circuit said that once you grant people the right to own "high capacity" magazines you can't just take that right away?

When did they say that?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
in time, every person will be able to marry the person they vow to love. as long as they're not being raised by bigots, kids today understand this is just and consistent with the meaning of romantic love. religious and political positions against it will be seen for what they are. . .
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yeah, in time, according to the plan devised by Antonio Gramsci, a son will be able to marry his dad, a brother will be able to marry his sister, etc., you know, the person they vow to love. After all, if we are going to accept that a man can marry a man, a woman can marry a woman, in spite of their inability to procreate, who are we to set any perimeters at all?

No perimeters, not when it comes to gender, or number or relationship. Why, we will become a virtual Rome II with the same future.

And let's just get rid of all those pesky laws about "legal" age. After all, girls now, no matter their age, can buy "morning after" pills if they have enough money in their piggy banks. Pedophiles are so thankful for Obama.

God forbid that children should be raised by "bigots." You know, Christian whites, which are the last remaining segment of our society that is politically correct to hate.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sibling marriage is already legal in some parts of Europe (I think Germany) as long as both consent to sterilization. Only a post-Christian country would accept this.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
zane1,
very sorry to hear your perverted views of sexuality.

also, for my white christian friends, i am offended that you imply they are bigots.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bigot is as a bigot does and YOU, lady, are a bigot!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
?? you don't know me!

Do you know any teenagers? They grasp the difference between being romantically attracted to a person - whether same sex or not - and being attracted to their sibling.

No one is threatening your religion or your politics. I am simply pointing out that in a generation or so, you will be in the minority.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't need to know you. Your bigotry oozes out of every word.

In our schools kids aren't learning math or science - they are learning gay. I know this because I recently spoke to my sister-in-law and it was all gay all day at my nephews school.

That's brainwashing and that is why "gay" kids are committing suicide. Because when they are young they like the attention they get from the teachers. When they reach adolescence they discover they are straight and are then sent to counseling because they are in denial. They are then trapped and have no where to go but dead.

This is your world.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I love my geranium. My geranium responds to the way I prune him. The way he responds to my pruning him I know he only loves me. He doesn't like anyone to prune him but me and pruning him gives me a closeness and pleasure I find with no other plant. I want to marry my geranium. Someday the Supreme Court will allow me to marry my geranium.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm sorry, but anyway you slice it, two lesbians and an airedale do not a marriage a make. They are the same sex. They cannot procreate. One or both of them can, through various means, but it is not a marriage in either the sacred, or age-old cultural meaning of the term (although there may be some exceptions to the custom among highly-isolated rainforest tribes). I have no truck against gays or lesbians, or even trans-gender organ-grinders, but I, like most of sane society, draw the line with Marriage. Come on, GLBT, isn't a liberal blind eye enough for you? Try "civil unions" -- it is the exact same thing in terms of legalities. Of course it is. But this has nothing to do with logical argumentation. This is pure politics. Leftist/Progressive vs. Right-wing/Conservative.

And, as an aside, how do you "folks" (as Obama prefers) think you would fare in a triumphal Islamic World, you know, the culture that your politicians bend over backwards to appease? Yes. I know how horrible America must seem to be to you all, but really, get a grip. Take the "civil-union" compromise. Same coverage, but you just don't get to take down traditional American/Western conventions and institutions in the process.

Come on, whaddya say? How about half the pie? Huh?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They only want marriage so they have standing to sue the churches. They want the ability to bankrupt those horrible institutions that dared to call their deviant lifestyle an abomination!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Totalitarians want the entire pie, there is no compromise.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
At this rate, I guess all we can hope for is for the world to end because there will be nowhere you can go to have your rights respected if you are Christian. Recognizing the legality of gay marriage and redefining it under the equal protection clause would trump freedom of religion which effectively means that Amendment 1 is dead.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The equal protection clause, vouchsafed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, came in the immediate aftermath of the bloodiest conflict in all of American history: The Civil War. It had NOTHING to do with sexual preferences. It had ONLY to do with correcting the wrongs of black slavery. Period. In point of fact, it excluded Native Americans from its coverage. That would come later at the turn of the 20th Century through legislative action.

Again: the 14th Amendment has NOTHING to do gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, or any other sexual subspecies of the American republic. And it is obscene to claim otherwise.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That doesn't matter. Look how they have corrupted the commerce clause.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Young people eventually grow up and these days that may happen sooner than people like Ms. Gillibrand expect - like when the next Obama scandal breaks. Youthful idealism is a double-edged sword.

Just curious. Is the Windsor in United States vs. Windsor the same Windsor who won all those awards at the EPA, that fictitious chap Richard Windsor?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All