Rachel Maddow Digs in to Yesterday’s SCOTUS Marriage Rulings: VIDEO

Gabe the intern, the DOMA project, and the way the Court ruling yesterday instantly changed people's lives.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Prop 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And the telephone calls from the President, and Edie Windsor:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comments

  1. mike85 says

    When she said of a hypothetical couple moving to Utah that got married in NY, and saying how can they be married and not married at the same time reminded me of Schrodinger’s Cat. Our marriage laws for gay/lesbian couples are the Schrodinger’s Cat of marriage.

  2. JONES says

    Love me some Rachael Maddow too but I have to say that she missed out on what I believe to be the most important aspect of Justice Kennedy’s ruling.

    Haven’t seen anyone else address this point yet either and was waiting to see Ari’s take but I’ll post it again here.

    When Kennedy says what I take as the heart of his message on LGBT marriage equality is that yes it is a state’s right to ‘regulate’ marriage but that those regulations have to ahdere to federal constitutional guarantees of freedom. Fourteen times in SCOTUS case history marriage has been upheld to be a fundamental constitutionally guaranteed human right.

    His dissent in Prop 8 was because like Sotomayor he wanted the case judged in fact on these constitutional guarantees of which he would have been a supporter. The technical aspect of standing for Prop 8 was trumped by the issue of legalized discrimination.

    I believe this is the message he was sending and if I’m reading this correctly then the approach would be for LGBT couples that want marriage but is denied that right by state constitutions that have forbidden it then they need to file suit against those states for loss of equal protection.

  3. bernard says

    Andy, your links are formatted wrong again.

    Also, I know this has certainly been brought up before, but when are you going to change the garish design of the website? I want more “Boston Globe” and less “Drudge Report”. It’s time to move to the 21st Century.

  4. Rich says

    @Jones
    “The technical aspect of standing for Prop 8 was trumped by the issue of legalized discrimination.”

    In a sense, it’s a technical issue, but it’s also at the heart of the Supreme Court’s power. The Constitution tolerates the ability of five unelected Justices to have the final say about what is and is not the law of the land only by severely limiting the circumstances under which they can even be asked to render an opinion. If the Supreme Court adopted California’s rules about standing, the scope for judicial activism would be expanded to an intolerable degree.

    As Justice Scalia–with his usual prescience–pointed out, the Court would probably be inclined to require marriage equality under the equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments, but it needs the right case to do it. Because then- Governor Schwarzenegger refused to defend Prop 8 on appeal once Judge Walker invalidated it, Perry was not the right case.

    It’s an open question whether Schwarzenegger helped or hurt us. Walker’s judgment, which now stands, was far broader and more favorable than what the 9th Circuit was willing to rule. Had SCOTUS accepted standing, they could easily have affirmed the 9th Circuit ruling that only limited the power of states to remove previously granted marriage rights. Since Washington restored marriage equality by referendum, California would be the only state to which the 9th Circuit decision could apply.

  5. JONES says

    @Rich
    Understood and agree re case load/activism and the importance of standing. Maybe Kennedy had other reasons to dissent (citizens imitative, court expansion) but I was reading his dissent on rejection of Prop 8 that he viewed the merits of the case outweighing standing.

    My major point was that Kennedy’s language on DOMA was not subjective.

    Specifically his statement of about state regulation of marriage being subject to constitutional guarantees of equal protection shows that litigation in the the 37 states that ban SSM equality will not be wasted.

    Hindsight. Schwarzenegger. Sometimes your friends hurt you even while trying to help. And I agree with you entirely that the proper case before SCOTUS will gain equality though I don’t see Scalia voting that way.

Leave A Reply