Gay Marriage, What are these cases about?

These summaries are taken from npr.org
The Case: Hollingsworth v. Perry, 12-144 (Argued Tuesday at 10 a.m. ET)
At Issue: This case centers around a challenge to California's voter-approved gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8: Does it violate the 14th Amendment, which prevents states from denying people equal protection under the law? In this case, too, there's a question about whether gay marriage opponents have a right to defend the ban in court, since the state of California has declined to do so.
The Background: Two same-sex couples, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, sued after being denied marriage licenses in 2009.
What Other Courts Have Said: Lower federal courts have ruled against Proposition 8. However, the federal appeals court that heard the case before it headed to the Supreme Court ruled on narrow grounds, saying because California previously allowed same-sex marriage, "Proposition 8's only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation." The Supreme Court could similarly rule in a way that only applies to California or a handful of states. Or it could rule broadly on whether all gay couples have a right to marry.

---

The Case: United States v. Windsor, 12-307 (Argued Wednesday at 10 a.m. ET)
At Issue: The case challenges the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, preventing those couples from getting tax breaks and other benefits for married couples. Does it violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law for the federal government not to recognize gay couples legally married under the laws of their state?
But with the Supreme Court, things are rarely straightforward. The Obama administration has decided not to defend the law. So now the court also has to decide whether that means it doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on the case and whether House Republicans can defend the law instead.
The Background: Edith Windsor sued because, as she put it, "I couldn't believe that our government would charge me $350,000 because I was married to a woman and not a man." When her spouse died, Windsor had to pay federal estate taxes that wouldn't have been required if her marriage had been recognized by the government.
What Other Courts Have Said: Lower courts have ruled in Windsor's favor, saying the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as "only a union between one man and one woman" is unconstitutional.

Exciting stuff today!!

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175273122/in-first-of-2-gay-marriage-cases-court-turns-to-proposition-8

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Video/__NEW/scotus_130326.mp3

Opinions of the Week

Here are two of your classmates opinions on Kyllo v U.S. that were particularly well done

In my opinion, I believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision because even though the agency did not physically intrude Kyllo's house, they still used a device that the public is not allowed to use normally. If the police had been watching Kyllo's building or something of that sort, then it would be legal. Using a thermal-imaging device is technically invading Kyllo's privacy by finding out information about the inside of his building which is private to Kyllo. A precedent that helps explain my case is the case California v. Ciraolo. In that case the Santa Clara police department received an anonymous tip saying that Ciraolo was growing marijuana in his backyard. The police could not see into Ciraolo's backyard because of a high fence that surrounded the yard so they flew a plane 1,000 feet up in the air to spy on Ciraolo instead. The flying plane confirmed there was marijuana in the backyard and the police then received a search warrant and arrested Ciraolo the next day when they went to his yard. Ciraolo pleaded guilty but the Court of Appeals said that the use of the flying plane was illegal and reversed Ciraolo's conviction. The Court ruled 5-4 in favor for California saying that the aerial space being used by the plane proved that there was no violation of the 4th Amendment and that it was not intrusive. This was compared to how people do not have to close their eyes when they see houses on public streets or sidewalks so flying in public air space is the same thing. This helps explain my opinion because by using a device to gain information about the inside of Kyllo's building, the agency was violating the public property rule by going theoretically inside private property.

My Opinion
I believe that using the thermal imaging did violate his 4th amendment right to privacy. Based on Katz vs. United States, information not obtainable through a routine search cannot be obtained without a warrant. In Katz's case his phone calls were wire tapped so the police could listen in on his conversation. The police could not have obtained that evidence with technology and therefore made the search unreasonable. Again we see technology being used to find special information in Kyllo's case, yet that search of his house was unreasonable; "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant," said Scalia while speaking for the majority. Therefore, the search was in fact unreasonable.