Charles Blow writes on the historic nature of the marriage equality cases
in his New York Times column today, titled History in Real Time. As is usual for Blow, i is a column well worth the read.
He begins by writing
Dana Milbank has a good column on DOMA case
He begins by writing
Witnessing a historic moment is such an odd and exhilarating thing. It is hard to register the full scope of it because you are chest deep in it.He goes on to observe that regardless of how the Justices rule in the cases argued the past two days,
there is no denying that something historic has just happened: an aggrieved group has taken a stand and given voice once again to the American — and indeed Democratic — ideals of justice and fairness and freedom.He continues with a brief observation about the argumentation (including referencing Justice Ginsburg on "skim milk marriage) and recent pattern of Democratic politicians declaring their support of marriage equality while
Dana Milbank has a good column on DOMA case
and well worth reading.
Here's the link
He takes a lot of the statements and questions from Kennedy to show how strongly the swing Justice seems inclined to overturn the portion of DOMA in question - and it is worth remembering that the only part argued was the Federal recognition of same sex marriages, not Section 2 which allows other states not to recognize same sex marriages from places like New England, Iowa, DC, and NY.
WHIle it is conceivable that 5 Justices could vote to overturn the entire law, given Kennedy's propensity to uphold states' rights, it is likely that any opinion he joins will ignore Section 2.
Anyhow, here are a couple of snips from Milbank:
After some Justices had discussed whether the case should be before them,
Here's the link
He takes a lot of the statements and questions from Kennedy to show how strongly the swing Justice seems inclined to overturn the portion of DOMA in question - and it is worth remembering that the only part argued was the Federal recognition of same sex marriages, not Section 2 which allows other states not to recognize same sex marriages from places like New England, Iowa, DC, and NY.
WHIle it is conceivable that 5 Justices could vote to overturn the entire law, given Kennedy's propensity to uphold states' rights, it is likely that any opinion he joins will ignore Section 2.
Anyhow, here are a couple of snips from Milbank:
After some Justices had discussed whether the case should be before them,
But Kennedy was having none of it. “It seems to me there’s injury here,” he said.Then there is this:
And when the lawyer tried to argue that DOMA is justified because “an unelected state judiciary in Hawaii” is about to rule on same-sex marriage, Kennedy responded: “But your statute applies also to states where the voters have decided it.”And finally this:
Late in the two-hour argument, Kennedy described what he called a “DOMA problem” — a violation