Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
There are two companion case -- here.
-- -- the Supreme Court heard oral argument on proposition eight that's a a referendum enacted by the voters in California.
Which share them.
Terminated the same sex marriage after about 181000.
Same sex marriage -- had been performed at a time when it was lawful and that's the issue today.
Briefs were submitted the court the justices read the briefs today they heard oral argument that's the justices questioning the lawyers for both sides no decision at all.
Tomorrow they will hear a companion case which the constitutionality.
Of section three -- Film as an acronym for defense of marriage act enacted by the congress signed by President Clinton.
In 1996 and it basically prohibits prohibits the federal government.
From recognizing same sex marriages and says to the states.
You may do so as well and allows the states to decide on camera that President Clinton has since changed his -- -- Yes I know that he has and for for those of us who believe that it's none of the governments business -- you -- -- marry I'm glad that he did change his mind however under the law.
The renunciation of a statute by the signer of -- is signal moment whatsoever that will not move the Supreme Court it either way.
But tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument just on don't mind.
Since these two issues are related because the concept of same sex marriage is at the core of both of them.
The court while not discussed among itself among them the justices were not discussed among themselves and either these cases until oral arguments concluded on both.
So I would guess knowing their schedule.
That probably Thursday morning of this week -- we'll sit down and actually take a vote on these two cases a preliminary vote.
And based on how the vote vote goes.
For the senior justice on either side -- each case will assign.
Someone else could be him or herself.
To write an opinion and has opinions are drafted -- circulated sometimes the numbers change people see arguments I had thought of when they made that preliminary vote -- -- -- epic final until it's until the ink is dry but you -- -- initially they'll be putt putt went to.
Opinions written on this well I don't know that could be one opinion on both.
Mighty guesses just from having been involved in this so much myself.
That there will be too there are two discrete issues.
One is can the voters at a popular referendum take back -- privilege once granted.
And the other is can the federal government which does not regulate marriages.
Deny recognition of valid lawful state marriage.
Send them with having said that him and you've broken down so clearly forests -- it won't come June what could happen I think that we -- to every decision story.
It'd be it disc or can this be -- -- to one decision well.
It's it's hard to say what can happen there there's a long menu law students and law professors this week.
I keep getting to this manual I don't know the web -- to -- upsetting get the menu of possible outcomes there are dozens of possible outcomes.
Because the lowest sometimes decided by minute rifles and -- -- odd twists in this for example dogma.
It's not being defended by the Justice -- not being defended by any lawyer hired by the federal government because the president -- it's unconstitutional so he's big and -- chassis department.
From defending this statute this is unheard of in modern times so the court could very well say.
There's no appeal here because -- the defense or not they're defending and it's unfair or the statute is automatic Wisconsin's offense won't even that won't even defend it.
So then if -- stands come June if it stands as is.
Then -- if if if the Supreme Court decides that -- almost stands -- as well that's the -- the issue than on -- constitutional and we just have to have to live with it.
My guess is yet to separate opinions.
One on proposition eight my guess is they'll invalidate proposition eight which it was -- in California.
Those guys and girls who have already gotten married big beard legally married and moving forward you can get married in SA reason I think that it's not because -- my opinion on same sex marriage my opinion it's nothing.
But that the court's track record in the past is that a a privilege great benefit once granted.
Cannot be taken away when it is taken away for reasons other than the fault of the person from home it's taken.
Here it's been taken because of the sexual orientation and a great person not because of meaningful -- -- the voters decided that yes it changed their mind yeah when the state of Colorado.
Voted at a popular referendum.
From according protection.
For -- the Supreme Court removed that that referendum so you can't do that you can't isolate -- and say you're not allowed their protections that others have.
From that opinion and justice Kennedy's opinion in.
Those of us who watch these things conclude that the court is likely to invalidate proposition eight and somewhere and.
So you feel bad do you think that there is going to be a swing it was good a person and one of the justices need to provide -- -- decision on either or do you feel like.
This will be it unanimous -- -- -- I -- -- Olympian -- has just the schooling has made his opponents down.
A Justice Kennedy will probably join the four liberal members of the court.
In both of these cases he'll be the swing correctly.
This is just a guess -- courts on the basis of what Justice Kennedy has written in the past on and gay rights and states' rights and on this fundamental principle of can -- state which grants a privilege take it back.
OK so just in in summation then.
And again this is we have no idea what's gonna happen right in this is not basing your opinion were just talking using your expertise to sort of analyze that so.
Let's say don't matter if it's this -- justices decide look there's no appeal here this stance so then what happens that means -- as a place.
And that means well that that means that the actual plaintiff in goma.
Is is the inherit her of an -- from her -- They were lawfully married in New York.
The first million dollars of the -- is exempt from federal income tax.
But because the Fed's.
Do not recognize the valid New York marriage.
Just attacks -- about 365000.
Dollars so that's profound effect on her -- hasn't gotten that money you know the way taxes -- offense get the money first.
So the -- we'll get to keep that money.
And in similarly situated.
Circumstances around the country what what will happen -- you'll see a push in congress.
Don't don't -- which might very well pass there are a lot of libertarian Republicans like Europe.
Friend on the on the AM chart with you today not to lead and that the federal government should not be -- legislating in this area -- -- if it and that's where the court of public opinion will have yes absolutely absolutely are.
Filter by section