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.
In my opinion, these individuals 5th amendments are being violated with property, and happiness. And these are your basic rights, and due process is being violated. Also you cant make unequal laws against a selective sum of people. Either way these laws and protections should be covered by all people in each state.
ReplyDeleteFor Hollingsworth v. Perry, in my opinion I believed that it does violate the 14th Amendment because only states have the rights to make laws that deal with same-sex marriage. The federal government has no involvement in such issues unless it comes to a federal case. However, in The Declaration Of Independence, those unalienable rights could potentially involve gay marriage in a sense that we may have freedom to do this, and that we have pursuit happiness in our lives through maybe gay marriage. Also, all American citizens look up to the declaration because they want freedom to do things for what they please.
ReplyDeleteFor the case US v. Windsor I believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Windsor because of the Defense of Mariage Act. I also think the court will rule in favor of Windsor because if they were to be a man and women then it would not matter what state they were in as long as they had the paper work saying that they were married, to prevent that couple from paying taxes on the money given to them. So why would it be fair to change that if the two people of the same sex got married legally in a state? It shouldn't based off of the Defense of Mariage Act, 14th Amendment, and 6th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI believe in Hollingsworth v. Perry, that the ban on gay marriage, prop 8, should not go through. Like it was stated, the only thing the law would be doing is taking away a liberty from a specific sect of people. This law does not apply to the general public but only to those who are gay making this an unlawful act to pass.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that all couples no matter if the couple is heterosexual or homosexual should be given the same rights that everyone is promised in the 5th Amendment. The States should not be overpowered by the federal government on same-sex marriage laws because the 10th Amendment gives the States this power to decide what laws should be made for themselves. Also, if two people of the same sex get legally married, why should they be denied of paying taxes because the federal government does not recognize them as married when they are in fact legally married and in that sense should be recognized as a couple.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Hollinsworth v. Perry, I do believe that their fourteenth amendment rights were violated. Part of the fourteenth amendment gives the right to the people within the states, meaning that it is not only a federal law, but also a state law. Since the fourteenth amendment also guarantees equality to all, these couples cannot be denied a marriage license.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of United States v. Windsor, I do believe that the citizens fifth amendment rights were violated. The did not receive equal protection, because they had to pay a certain amount of money after the death of a partner. I believe that the Court will rule in favor of Windsor due to the the lower courts calling the DOMA unconstitutional. If the DOMA is unconstitutional then marriage is does not have to be specifically a man and a woman.
In my opinion, both cases are a violation of the 14th Amendment because the Constitution states that states cannot make or enforce laws that take away the privileges or immunities of citizens, and cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. I see the Marriage Laws as denying a certain group of people the same protection of the law as others, like in US v. Windsor. I believe it is unjust to not recognize a marriage license, especially if it is valid in the state where it was obtained. I believe the Supreme Court will rule against DOMA and Proposition 8, and this will allow gay marriage to be legal across the entire country.
ReplyDeletei believe that this is a clear violation of the equal rights act among people. By taking away privileges based on sexual orientation is not legal. I believe everyone should be treated equally. This is a clear violation of the 14th amendment and should be acted upon immediately.
ReplyDeleteMy view on this overall topic of gay marriage is that it should be legalized since marriage falls under the category of 'life' and perhaps 'liberty' in the fundamental rights of a person residing in this country-rights EVERY person should have. Although it is a decision that is left up to the state courts, they should allow same-sex marriage since it could be considered a violation of the fundamental rights of a person, maybe even constitutional. In the case of United States v. Windsor, I find it completely unfair and unconstitutional that Windsor had to pay such a large sum of money while another woman who was married to a man didn't have to pay the same amount. That could be considered as a form of discrimination and has no constitutional justification. In the other case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, I agree that it was wrong and unfairfor the state to allow same sex-marriage but later ban it again due to Prop. 8. However, looking from a constitutional angle of this case I do not believe that their suit makes sense since they were denied the rights when they re-banned same-sex marriage, not while it was legal for a short time in California.
ReplyDeleteI believe that marriage is not a fundamental right. Religions view it as a symbolic bond between a male and female. In Baker V. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family. I also think it would be unconstitutional to make people pay taxes on something they believe is wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn the case, United States v. Windsor, I believe the that Windsor should not be charged. This is violating the fourteenth amendment because she is not being treated equally. The fourteenth amendment says that everyone should guarantee equal protection. If she was being charged all of that money, that is not equal. Windsor should've been treated like all of the other humans in the Untied States.
ReplyDeleteWith this issue of gay marriage, I believe that everybody has a right to be with who they want to be with. I believe everybody has the right to be married to who ever they want to be with. In the case United States v. Windsor, I also thing it is unfair that he had to be charged. Everybody is equal, and I believe it is unfair for same sex marriage to have to pay and female and male marriage don't have to.
ReplyDelete(danny)
ReplyDeleteI know I posted about this in class but it looks like something happened to my comment… I guess ill do it again since it disappeared. Sorry about the mishap!
In United States V. Windsor I believe that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Windsor. Allowing opposite sex marriage over state lines but not same sex marriage is favoring one type of persons over another. Aditionally I believe that under the 14th amendment all people should have equal rights. Saying marriage for one group of people but no to another is completely unfair and is unconstitutional. All people have their basic fundamental rights and I think that marriage falls under that.