Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And I'm Jonathan Hunt same sex marriage is Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow and Wednesday I believe legal panel -- hold at least will witness.
The first hole least burn -- break it down review was we have to we have two issues is -- prop eight which is the California lol and then my defense of marriage -- represented.
The dumb act is a case brought by a woman -- She'd lost her spouse and -- apparently with 360000.
Dollars in federal taxes -- an -- she's dead she's a lesbian yes right which she would not have the same sex marriage.
She would not have to pay that have the government -- the federal government -- federal tax and recognize same sex marriage and he's making attacks and attacks equal protection argument.
Prop -- it's a different thing it's a state vs federal issue we -- prop eight.
Saying that you know there's there's a ban on gay marriage in this this -- -- -- and the state.
The voters have voted that way.
And you federal government can't come until the statement to do so you've got two different issues one -- -- attacks one vs state vs fox which of those.
Do on which which way on each of those camera would you see the Supreme Court going.
-- You know it's -- I've thought about this for years and has this has been a topic that means that that went propping it was ruled on our border on a few years ago.
We've -- conversations so it's not like some new case the -- you know murder case or something or just -- things.
I'm -- and I thought about it you know on one hand he bought the -- of California voted.
They have a voice behind democracy -- -- they voted against this against legalizing same sex marriage.
On the other hand.
At least mention equal protection -- I believe that there is that it's unequal then if you are married and state recognizes it as as a legal marriage.
They should be and how all protections well -- any other wrinkle to it to as prop eight is that the state gave it right.
And said you can't you can't get married in California same sex marriage and we will look at that as as entitlement.
And then I wanna take it away that's very problematic I think from a legal perspective it's hard to give a -- -- take it away.
So but -- them there on it particularly on prop eight.
That Supreme Court is going to be listening to this case.
On the legal basis -- on the basis of whether they can take away whether they can overrule states' rights not then not ruling him out on the basis all.
And same sex marriage should be a right for everybody in this country.
-- -- it's an excellent question because that the patents -- if they ruled very narrowly.
They're gonna rule in the way that you would just release -- of the question you very narrowly just on prop -- very -- on that.
If they would choose to be broader in their analysis and their ruling they could rule.
Because of due process people protection.
We the court believe that this is a right available right that you have.
To marry so it really depends on how narrowly they they've ruled or -- Broadway -- Usually.
Supreme Court tends to rule fairly narrow in the right by -- you know it's this close to the laws that can do that you want him.
-- -- Point and -- how would it be framed camera do we get a case in the supreme -- went presumably this is.
Ultimately headed that decides once -- -- for -- the issue of gay marriage.
-- actually speak.
I don't think so and the reason I say that is because.
That there are.
There are so many angles of this -- the religious angle.
There -- some borrowing all weather you know you and combined to nurse the State's rights.
And an individual liberties and whatever and so I think that what what these -- saying about narrow rulings.
You always have a different type of -- to have a different type of person it's bringing a case and so I see somebody else bringing a case saying they are harmed some way by the radicalization -- There's no one blockbuster case out there which is going to decide this from a supreme called point of view.
Well it's possible that either of these cases taken -- totality yes and they could you they could rule very broadly.
It's not -- it's likely though.
And look more likely would be a very narrow holes -- -- his narrowest -- I gotta get to -- and disorganized -- -- lessening briefly there's big debate a lot Obama -- right and now all these different provisions but what happened was I just and narrow.
Ruling narrowly than they actually really.
Legalized a -- right.
So you can you can make the biggest decision through one of the Caribbean and I had a -- -- that I had time aren't.
Filter by section