Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
And Fox News alert on two historic decisions regarding gay marriage in this country good morning to you -- I'm John Scott.
Hi everybody and generally in the Supreme Court just handing down rulings on two big cases.
The federal government's defense of marriage act -- -- and proposition -- California's voter approved ban on same sex marriage.
An F five to four decision the court struck down a key provision -- -- much saying it's a violation.
The Fifth Amendment.
The decision means federal benefits can no longer be denied to same sex couples who marry in states that allow gay marriage.
I'm prop eight the justices ruled five to four that opponents of same sex marriage in California do not have the ground Cecile.
Which clears the way for gay marriage in that state essentially because today's ruling let stand an earlier decision by California's highest court.
That prop eight is unconstitutional.
We quickly -- give you a little background on both prop eight and -- -- because these are words in -- you've heard for several years now.
President Clinton signed domain to lie in 1996.
It defined marriage as the union.
Have a man in -- one man for the sake of more than 11100 federal laws including -- state taxes and Social Security.
Survivor benefits and health care benefits for federal employees and also said no state is required to recognize an out of state same sex marriage.
Although that part of the law was not before the courts and that's days California voters enacted proposition eight and 2000 -- -- An amendment to the state constitution that became known as a California.
Marriage protection act it's it only marriage between a man and a woman.
Is valid in the states so a lot to take in here a big decision with some.
Some wide ranging effects Tim O'Brien's covered the US supreme -- -- decade now.
He's not so author of the new book murder at the Supreme Court lethal crimes and landmark cases against this is a landmark case.
Are both of them really are ten despite this.
Thought -- a -- like this.
Well they certainly are landmark decisions especially the -- -- case which tells you pretty much where the court is going.
The prop eight case was decided more on procedural grounds this is a big day for gay rights to twin victories.
In California it would appear that gay marriage may now continue although that's not really final -- either I would expect.
That proponents of gay marriage will now say that the district court decision which is the law of the land in California in validating prop eight.
Only applies to the an individual plaintiffs who brought that case so when -- -- when I mean other couples.
Better that had married and have not -- a similar case right what you're hearing is how it applies the entire state and I agree with that.
But I expect you'll find some argument being made in the courts that the district court decision only applies -- the actual couples who brought that case and has no other.
Impact beyond those two couples that's a case that I expect will be brought I think it's a losing argument but the point is it's not over yet.
The defense of marriage act is also that was a very important decision.
The court was ambiguous as -- what standard you apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Of the court and -- federal appeals court of Massachusetts that any such that you must only be rational must have some rational basis.
That the decision that the Supreme Court was -- reviewing in the Don McKay said because.
This kind of discrimination is so invidious and so hot stuff and so hard to remedy.
That such discrimination may only be justified by some compelling governmental interest.
The Supreme Court did not say what standard to apply but you know that it's skeptical of this kind of discrimination that's -- -- out in the future.
It's and one of the things that we're taking a look at on our show today and will be having few statements on this a little later on.
Is what these cases say about the relationship between the federal government the state governments and the individual.
When you take a look at these cases and maybe even some of the other cases we've heard from the -- for the last few weeks we think the Supreme Court is saying about that relationship.
Well if you talk about that it goes in different directions that mean that you have a states rights.
Case with -- voting rights and an affirmative action of the court sort of punted on that.
I think that the court is viewing.
Each case differently and I see no consistent thread.
Moved through all of them.
I do think however that the big decision of of the term is this defense of marriage act case not just because of the impact on marriage.
But because it tells you where the court is going and I would venture to say that if it comes back to the court.
Amendments like the one you have in California.
Than these -- these are numbers are going to be thrown out.
So go go further into that about what's next -- seats in this is the last ruling we're gonna get a bad bad this this session if you will for the Supreme Court.
What is next what do you do when you say you see where -- the court is going on this may be throwing out other other cases but in general Heidi -- to see what this says about.
Our justices who are really that that the top judges of the -- -- you know that this is going to come back.
And you kind of wonder how it will come back you might -- almost make the brother bizarre case that proponents of same sex marriage.
Might do better to go to Texas and you talk and try to get them to pass an amendment against it.
Then they can appeal it because you know the Texas and you talk would defend such an amendment in the Supreme Court and and they would have standing to to bring that case up.
It's this has been a long time coming.
-- we think of this now as the the vanguard of the with the cutting edge of the civil rights movement.
But these cases have been percolating the court for over twenty years.
Only now is the court really getting to look at them seriously you have a couple of other important decisions both written.
But justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote the -- decision today.
The state laws against homosexual activity are unconstitutional.
Throwing out a constitutional and -- in the Colorado that set.
Gay and lesbians.
Aside for no special protection you can't have affirmative action for them the Supreme Court and -- opinion by Justice Kennedy also found that was going too far.
You have I believe a majority on the court.
To uphold gay rights the question is what is the next case it's out there it's not the court's door stop the doorstep today but it's on its way.
Really good context for us today as always -- always appreciate your thoughts thank you so much as you.
Filter by section