DOMA and Prop 8: Promising?

After months of anticipation, the United States Supreme Court has finally decided on DOMA and Prop 8 out of California. To be honest, I expected the Court to either throw out the cases altogether, or to side step a firm decision and push it back. With specific sections (3) of DOMA now ruled unconstitutional, same-sex families and couples can tap into governmental resources that were previously only alotted to different-sex couples. This includes: hospital and visitation rights (if you want to see the pain this caused before the DOMA decision, look up Bridegroom), tax credits and cuts for same sex couples and their children, funeral privileges, and literally HUNDREDS MORE. In the 5-4 decision it was stated by the Court that: "DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government. Under DOMA same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways". Although this isn't a decision that screams "Gay marriage is legal everywhere with no restrictions", it is a step forward and in the right direction. Say two men are married with two children. One man (the 'breadwinner' if you will) dies. Now in a straight marriage, the spouse would be able to collect the other's pension in order to provide for themself and the children. Before the decision today, gay couples were denied this right. There is a lot of room for improvement, but this is HUGE. Finally, all couples (who can legally marry in their respective states) are equal under the law, which has been a guarantee of citizenship since the foundation of our country. It's about time a higher governmental institution sees this. Shortly after the DOMA decision was announced, the Prop 8 decision was announced as well. The litigants bringing the case to the Supreme Court were found to not have standing to sue, and the Court affirmed and remanded the lower court's decision, therefore making a state ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional. Essentially, CA gets marriage! 13 states so far, 37 to go. However, although this is a great day for Americans, please remember that just yesterday the USSC struck down very important pieces of the Voting Rights Act. Also remember that the DOMA decision was 5-4. ONE VOTE. Equality is needed for EVERYONE. Count this as a win, however keep the rights of others in your mind at all times!

Same Love Outweighs Old Arguments

During the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8 case), Mr. Cooper said that states retain the right of protecting their "special interest" of procreation. Justice Alito also stated that since gay marriage was newer than cell phones and social media, how are we to decide if it's right for society?
BACK UP.
In response to Mr. Cooper's regurgitated statement, Justice Kagan responded with: "Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think
that the focus of marriage really should be on
procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses
anymore to any couple where both people are over the age
of 55. Would that be constitutional?"
Of course Mr. Cooper responded with no. It would not be constitutional. However, Justice Kagan is right. If procreation is the ultimate goal of marriage, shouldn't we deny marriage licenses to seniors and the infertile? Furthermore, if Mr. Cooper's theory holds true to itself, wouldn't contraception then have to be federally illegal? For if marriage only serves the purpose of procreation, why would instruments be available to prevent conception? However, that issue was already settled in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). As citizens, we do have a right to use contraceptives. However, where did the Supreme Court find the law to back this claim up? Oh yeah, in the "right to marital privacy". Well, if a right to marital privacy has already been established, who cares what goes on inside of it? The Federal Government would be the correct answer. 
Justice Alito's statement only warrants commentary because it is so incredibly stupid. Tradition has always played a critical role in the SCOTUS due to the fact that we don't like changing things that have been going well due to the fear of societal downfall. Remember when African Americans were predicted to run society into the ground if given equal rights? Same thing going on here. If homosexuals are afforded marriage rights, there goes society! This will not happen. Furthermore, Alito claims that gay marriage was first developed in the Netherlands in 2000. This is wrong. Dating back to mythological times, some societies viewed homosexuality as the purest form of love available. And gay relationships and unions have been going on as long as we've been here, we have just been forced to suppress those tales because they don't fit into the "traditional" form of marriage. This is why we have things like "Coming Out Day". Unlike racial profiling, you cannot always tell someone is gay from their outward appearance, this forced many people into the closet to hide their orientation. Don't do this. It warps society's image of your power and results in Justice Alito saying foolish, untrue things on the record. 
And Scalia, well I won't even go into Scalia. Just know that he has admitted to have a "fear of gays", has described them as "terrifying", yet promises to set aside his personal beliefs in order to hand down a fair ruling. 
Yeah, right.
Stay strong people.

What's Really At Stake?

As we all have heard, today and tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will hear cases on the Constitutionality of Prop 8 and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). A little history to begin. DOMA was enacted after Massachusetts voted to legalize gay marriage in 2004. George W. Bush's reaction to the newly instated Massachusetts law was to create DOMA. DOMA federally recognizes the marriage of different-sex couples, and defines marriage as the union between only one woman and one man. After passing DOMA, Bush was worried that it would one day be tested in the high courts (which is why he also pushed for a Constitutional amendment), and he was right. Today is that day.
When we think of marriage we often forget what marriage actually constitutes. Why does the federal government care about marriage at all? It is definitely not mentioned in the Constitution. The answer lies in the nuclear family model. Individuals are often more self sufficient when they are part of a "wholesome" family unit, which is why the federal government has a hand in the pot when it comes to recognizing marriage. However, marriage isn't the whole story. Benefits are accrued during the time spent married, and it is estimated that marries, different-sex couples receive up to 1000 more benefits than same-sex couples do. And here's the kicker. We just legalized gay marriage in Washington, right? Although couples can marry in that state, they cannot receive any federal benefits, thanks to DOMA.
Here is a short list of rights that same-sex couples (even married ones) are denied:
-Joint parental rights of children
-Joint adoption
-Status as "next-of-kin" for emergency situations, and medical issues
-Right to make a decision about where/what to do with a loved ones remains.
-Immigration and residency for partners from other countries.
-Automatic inheritance in absence of a will.
-Social security
-Medicare
-Spousal veteran benefits
-Joint filing of taxes
-Sick leave/maternity leave to take care of partner/partner's child
-Tax credits
-Estate and gift tax benefits.
And the list goes on. This isn't only about marriage. This is about being equal before the law.
Here is a parting story.
The women pictured below are Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer. After being together 42 years, the couple decided to marry in Canada (their only option) in 2007. Two years after their marriage, Thea succumbed to MS and passed away. Following the death of her partner, Windsor had to pay extremely high inheritance taxes in order to receive Spyer's estate. THIS is what has to stop. Same love.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (1965)

Many of you may not know, but the Supreme Court is hearing a case next Wednesday (February 27th) to discuss the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The case is derived from Shelby County, Alabama, and is a concern due to redistricting lines drawn to reflect race, or false addressed provided by voters. Section 5 essentially states that 9 states, and parts of 7 others, must report changes made to voter registration requirements, poll locations, etc to Washington before making changes. Essentially, the state must receive pre-clearance before altering voting practices, no matter how subtle the changes may be. Here is a short piece I did for Law and Social Change. Hopefully this will spark the attention of a few people and create interest in the case being heard next week!

The Voting Rights of 1965 ensures that everyone (regardless of race) has the right to vote. The right to vote is essential to democratic participation and government involvement. However, currently, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being challenged in the Supreme Court this term. The current question being considered is whether or not Section 5 is constitutional in terms of renewal. The section essentially makes 9 states (and parts of 7 others) report any changes in voting laws that might make voting more difficult for African Americans. Historically, the states that must report their changes to Washington participated in voting laws and regulations that prevented the black vote, no matter how subtle the changes may be. By having the state’s actions reviewed by a higher authority, racial fueled reasons for altering voting laws could be prevented and monitored for illegality. The case is supported by interest groups such as Project on Fair Representation and DonorsTrust (Greenhouse 2011).

            Personally, I believe that the Voting Rights Act is needed just as much today as it was in 1965. Although surface attitudes have shifted to represent unbiased opinions and racism is openly ousted and rejected by many groups and Americans, subtle laws and regulations often go un-noticed. In my opinion, while the public is sleeping, Washington is at work, meaning that we might not even notice voter laws around us that could negatively affect our neighbors. In the previous Presidential election, voter fraud and registration issues were a critical part of the media for quite a while. For example, many states adopted stricter voter registration laws prior to the election. These laws required things such as photo ID’s as a pre-requisite for registration. The problem is that minorities are often disproportionately affected by these laws because they are less likely to have a photo ID, due to State controlled operations such as the DMV (Lee 2012). [JMcD1] Although it was not an assigned reading for the whole class, Michelle Alexander’s book “The New Jim Crow” really altered my views on what is really going on when it comes to minority vote. When photo ID’s are available and every other qualification is met, many minorities still cannot vote due to their felon status. I believe that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act will always be needed. If a large interest group can swoop in and provide millions of dollars to fight against a Section of the VRA, think about what their money can do when no such Act is in place.

Other Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/voter-id-laws-minorities_n_1878893.html

---

Judicial Activism, Marbury, Plessy and Brown: A Political Rant

Today in my Law and Social Change class we discussed the topic of activist judges. Although there is no concrete definition, I find confusion and uncertainty in most modern definitions. For example, the New York Times defines Judicial Activism based on vote record of Congressional law turn-downs. This places Justices Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia at the top of the list. I personally see Scalia as a textualist with a strict interpretation of the language of the law, with little room for creativity and original laws. However, this does not necessarily mean that he is an Activist Judge. The Heritage Foundation, a large Conservative think-tank defines judicial activism as being a liberal trait. It uses the Ledbetter and Citizens United cases as background for this basis. However, Citizens United turned over a campaign finance precedent that had been in place for 100+ years. How is this Judicial Activism? Certainly we have altered our views and interpretation of the Constitution, so shouldn't this decision be viewed as an update of social opinion surrounding campaign finance rather than activism?
To back up a little bit, this question would have never been raised had it not been for Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The Marshall Court sacrificed the grievance (the legitimacy of Marbury's midnight appointment by Adams) in order to use the opportunity as a platform to earn the Court's supremacy. Essentially, by pleasing Madison, he affirmed the Court's right to judicial review. To me, that was the original instance of judicial activism. The Marshall Court followed the words in the Constitution and the Laws of the time to deny Marbury his appointment. However, Marshall added meaning to the simple words of the Constitution and used the added meaning to make the Court supreme in its power. This is the basis for my argument as to what defines Judicial Activism.
Moving forward to Brown v. Board in 1954. Most argue that Brown represents and activist decision. However, I do not see it as such. In Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896, the Court took a completely different approach than Brown and arrived at the decision that separate but equal was in-fact equal. In Brown the opposite decision was reached in saying that separate but equal is inherently unequal. I would argue that Plessy represents judicial activism more so than Brown due to the fact that the sitting judges at the time were using their interpretation of the Constitution (which would later prove to be wrong) to deny essential rights to African Americans. However in Brown, the negative sentiment that followed the Plessy decision was realized by the Court. Essentially, Brown reversed Plessy and used interpretation of Law to grant rights to African Americans and take them away. Although both cases added interpretation and language to pre-existing laws, I feel like Brown took the right path of minority protection in going against public will. With that being said, I would have to define an Activist Judge as being someone who adds personal influence and language to pre-existing instances and definitions of modern law in order to accomplish a unified goal whether or not it go against public opinion.
Rant over.