Gay Marriage Moves to the Courts

Thursday, January 14, 2010

The California case seeking to undo Proposition 8 on constitutional grounds could make it to the U.S. Supreme Court with potential to greatly expand gay rights nationally, but not everyone is convinced the timing is right. New Yorker staff writer Margaret Talbot discusses the legal strategies in support of gay marriage.


Margaret Talbot

Comments [22]

hjs from 11211


you seem to misunderstand the function these culture war issues have for ameican politicians. without culture war issues it would be clear that the 2 parties are just there to help big business.

Jan. 14 2010 12:41 PM
hjs from 11211

Ben & JOHN
how long do we have to wait before your lies expire?

Jan. 14 2010 12:19 PM
Peter from Manhattan

Roe backfired in the sense that the issue of abortion hangs over every election and every judicial appointment, distorting every discussion and increasing voter turnout on the religious fringe.

The matter should have been settled almost forty years ago. At the time, legislative efforts to legalize abortion were underway, and if they had run their course, chances are that we would have ended up with the kind of compromise that most other democracies arrived at and the matter would have been settled.

Jan. 14 2010 12:19 PM
john from office

Brian removes comments he does not like.

Jan. 14 2010 12:17 PM
Ben from NY

Hey, what happened to my earlier comment?

One is not allowed to ask if this is part of the new regular homosexual advocacy segment on the program?

Jan. 14 2010 12:13 PM
Jon P. from The Garden State

IF you argue that if you are gay and can’t procreate then you cant call it marriage, Isn’t this a constitutional slippery slope? What if you cant have kids or don’t want to have kids or your to old to have kids but your 100% heterosexual? Wouldn’t denying marriage for not procreating not only be a violation of homosexual rights but also age discrimination if your to old to have kids? Discrimination against religious and moral views if you don’t want kids? Discrimination against people who physically can’t have kids?

Procreation as a requisite for the definition of marriage seems like a pretty weak argument at best.

Jan. 14 2010 12:11 PM
hjs from 11211

Roe backfired? women have control over their bodies where is the backfire?

Jan. 14 2010 12:08 PM
Peter from Manhattan

I'm afraid that this effort may backfire the way Roe v Wade backfired.

In most other democratic countries, the matter of abortion was settled by the legislative branch, leading a compromise that everybody could live with, and the issue went away.

In the US, the Supreme Court preempted the legislative process, making abortion a bone of contention in every election since.

Don't get me wrong; I'm solidly in favor of reproductive rights as well as marriage equality, but I am afraid that marriage equality may become another eternal rallying point for conservatives.

Jan. 14 2010 12:05 PM
hjs from 11211

none of us are free unless all of us are free.

Jan. 14 2010 12:04 PM
Ben from NY

John, right on.

Don't use the word gay for them either. They stole/hijacked that word. It used to mean happy and was a female given name before they absconded with it.

And it is sexual preference, not orientation.

We must stop using their agenda-based terminology and hopefully, God willing, we will stop their proposed marriage debasement legislation.

Jan. 14 2010 12:03 PM
hjs from 11211


Jan. 14 2010 12:03 PM
peter from Brooklyn

I think there is more to the church state issue than you discussed. After all, we have inverested in clergy the right to act on the states behalf when they say, "By the power invested in me by the State of X, I now pronounce you..." Also, on the federal state and local levels, there are profound civil issues that supercede religion, e.g. taxation, home ownership, survivor rights, etc.

Jan. 14 2010 12:01 PM
hjs from 11211

you have an interesting imagination

Jan. 14 2010 12:00 PM
john from office

Is anyone else tired of this issue???

Jan. 14 2010 11:59 AM
Betty Anne from UES

DOMA is federal. Even if Gay people are married/unionized they still can't marry foreign nationals.

Jan. 14 2010 11:58 AM
john from office

Ben I agree with you, Briam is a paid spokesman for this issue. it is same sex marriage not marriage equality. Language is important.

Jan. 14 2010 11:57 AM
greg p from NYC

I want the Federal TAX code changed as well as the benefits from Social Security Administration,
I do not care what my relationship is labeled....
This is why it must be a federal policy change....

Jan. 14 2010 11:57 AM
Gregg L from SoHo

First, a shout out to Ms. Talbot, once my editor at our High School paper. Now a bit of shameless promotion: with cameras now banned from the courtroom, we at Firedoglake are liveblogging every minute of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. We have Teddy Partridge and Marcy Wheeler live in the SF courthouse, and more team coverage throughout our site. We have put together a one-stop resource for liveblogs, video, court documents, and more at

Thanks to Brian for covering this important issue.

Jan. 14 2010 11:57 AM

Why doesn't the gay marriage movement use the Full-Faith and Credit gay marriage is legal in Mass. so other states should have to recognize the marriages preformed there.

Jan. 14 2010 11:55 AM
Betty Anne from UES

State by state? 52 battles? Is it really 2010?

Jan. 14 2010 11:53 AM
Martin from Brookly

Is it possible for the public to see testimony in the Prop 8 case?

Jan. 14 2010 11:51 AM
Betty Anne from UES

I'm so glad this is getting the federal treatment. Many people (even gays) fail to see that marriage rights go far beyond that of the state.

Whether or not the supreme court rules in our favor we all know who is on the right side of history here.

Jan. 14 2010 11:48 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.