MacKenzie Gage
United States Supreme Court Case
Mass Comm Law and Ethics
December 14, 2013
“Do you Mr. A take Mr. B in Holy Matrimony? I Do.”
California is taking a stand and stopping Proposition 8 and having equality in marriage where people of the same sex can be married just as people of opposite sex.
With the research done on this United States Supreme Court Case the court has decided against Proposition 8 and for the equality of marriage. This is a great step for the United States and the state of California even though it will cause change and problems through the rest of the fifty states.
Within the oral arguments of this case many things have been brought to the attention of the justices about what could happen if same sax marriage was allowed. Some of those things that were discussed were same say marriage, benefits to same sax married couples, adopting children as same sex couples, and different aspects of procreation. When listening and reading the transcript each side had very interesting points to make backing up the side that they were standing behind. I am sure that some people who had very firm beliefs to a certain side were swayed to a different side because of the arguments that the lawyers and justices were making.
It was hard to understand at times because of the legal terms but the justices would also crack jokes and pick fun at the side that they are against. Some of the lawyers would get a little off topic or contradict themselves and the justices would not let that go. The link to this case is http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_144
Justice Elena Kagan said, “Because that’s the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don’t help us serve the Government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage.”
So why is that different?
The representative of the defendant, Charles J. Cooper said,” Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional —-“
[Laughter]
Justice Elena Kagan said, “ No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.”
[Laughter]
The representative of the defendant Charles J. Cooper said, “Your Honor, society’s — society’s interest in responsible procreation isn’t just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that—“ (Oral Argument)
Throughout the case they also discussed if same sex couples would be able to adopt children. They talked about this in regards to if this would cause harm to the children and if there were any scientifically studied cases about this issue. The lawyer on the petitioner side did not have an answer to this but there were some sort of answers that went around the question. Here is what was said with in the oral argument.
“Justice Antonin Scalia said, “If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s — there’s considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “California — no, California does.”
Justice Antonin Scalia said,”I don’t think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that, whether it — whether it harms or helps the child?”
Charles J. Cooper representative of the defendant said, ”No, Your Honor.”
Justice Antonin Scalia said,”I — it’s true, but irrelevant. They’re arguing for a nationwide rule which applies to States other than California, that every State must allow marriage by same-sex couples. And so even though States that believe it is harmful — and I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it is certainly true that — that there’s no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.”
Charles J. Cooper representative of the defendant said,” And — and that, Your Honor, is the point I am trying to make, and it is the Respondents’ responsibility to prove, under rational basis review, not only that — that there clearly will be no harm, but that it’s beyond debate that there will be no harm.” (Oral Argument)
With all of this information we can see that the United States and the state of California are debating issues that are talked about on both sides of the political spectrum. People are talking about it all throughout the world. It is discussed in schools, political debates, and courts all over the world. Knowing that this is going on should make the United States and its inhabitants should be glad that we are willing to change and alter what is going on with are political arenas.
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts stated in the opinion announcement, “Finally this term I have the opinion of the Court in case 12-144, Hollingsworth versus Perry. In 2008, the California Supreme Court decided that limiting the official designation of marriage to opposite sex couples violated the California Constitution. States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal court house. We were asked in this case to decide whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but the proponents who ask that question do not have standing. Therefore, as we explained in our of our precedents, in light of the “overriding and time honored concern about keeping the judiciary’s power within its proper constitutional sphere, we must put aside the natural urge to proceed directly to the merits of this important dispute and to settle it.” We have no authority to consider the question presented in this case and neither did the Ninth Circuit.” (Opinion Announcement)
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a dissent in which he argued that the Supreme Court should defer to states’ rights in defining what parties may have standing. Because California law allows a third party to assert the state’s interest when state officials decline to do so, the California Supreme Court’s decision regarding the petitioners’ standing is binding. He also argued that the majority’s decision does not take into account the particularities of California’s initiative system and the dynamics that may lead the state to allow proponents of an initiative to stand in for the state. (oyez.com)
According to an article written in The New York, “But in clearing the way for same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, the court effectively increased to 13 the number of states that allow it. The decisions will only intensify the fast-moving debate over same-sex marriage, and the clash in the Supreme Court reflected the one around the nation.”
According to the Huffington Post,” The Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. United States cases reverberate positively across America as same-sex couples begin to exercise their new right to get married and enjoy certain federal and state marriage benefits that were previously denied. But the rulings are also being seen harshly by the religious right and other anti-marriage equality activists, many of whom are greatly angered by what the court decided. “
A variety of different television news shows were airing what was going on and a follow up on the updates after each court date to keep the public and followers of this court decision.
According to C-SPAN, who also aired the case and different press conferences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO_HoF1EBfw
With all of the different mediums that covered this court case and decision the public can see what is going on in the United States and how it can affect the whole nation. This case is very beneficial to the United States no matter what side of this issue you stand.
Homosexual couples are starting to get married and be able to start their lives together with no restrictions. Homosexual man, “The court decision has inspired me to find Mr. Right so we can live happily ever after with all of my rights. Thank you to the justices for making the right decisions.”
MacKenzie Gage 