Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

November-27-12

Supreme Court to Consider Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The United States Supreme Court will decide if they will take a case regarding same-sex marriage in a closed meeting this Friday. The Court is considering seven potential cases that challenge either the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or Proposition 8, California's controversial ban on same-sex marriage that made national headlines.

Cases being considered range from the inclusion of same-sex partners on federal and state health insurance policies to Social Security benefits to the basic legal right to marry. The Supreme Court has discussed taking these kinds of cases before, but the meeting on Friday suggests that the Court may see a case within the next year. For a case to appear before the Supreme Court, four judges must vote in favor of taking the case. It is possible that none of the cases will appear before the court if there is not enough consensus to get four votes.

Lambda Legal Executive Director Jon Davidson told the Huffington Post, "I don't think we're ever had an occasion where the Supreme Court has had so many gay rights cases knocking at its door. That in and of itself shows how far we've come." Lambda Legal is representing one case challenging DOMA that will be considered on Friday.

After the conference on Friday, the court could announce which cases have been accepted as early as that afternoon. Otherwise, the decision will become public on Monday morning when the court will release the order list detailing its actions during the conference.

LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, and the death penalty have been on the court's radar already this year. In October, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said: "The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state." Later that month, the court refused to hear a case proposed by anti-abortion Personhood Oklahoma that dealt with extreme personhood legislation.

Media Resources: ABC News 11/27/12; Buzzfeed 11/27/12; Huffington Post 11/27/12; Feminist Newswire 10/31/12, 10/08/12


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

8/4/2015 Senate Democrats Protect Funding for Planned Parenthood - Yesterday, Senate Democrats blocked legislation introduced by Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) that would have stripped all federal funding from Planned Parenthood. Senate Bill 1881 would have slashed $528 million in federal funds from Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides sexual and reproductive health care to millions of women and men each year. To advance, the bill required 60 votes in its favor. . . .
 
8/3/2015 The Senate is Voting on Planned Parenthood Funding Today - A Senate bill to defund Planned Parenthood is expected to come to a vote today. Sponsored by Republican Senator Joni Ernst (IA), Senate Bill 1881 would prohibit all Federal funding of Planned Parenthood or "any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics." The Senate will need 60 votes to advance the bill, which is being proposed following the release of highly edited video footage by anti-abortion group the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). The CMP's misleading videos claim that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue. . . .
 
8/3/2015 Anti-Abortion Extremist Will Stand Trial for Threatening a Provider - A Kansas anti-abortion extremist will have to stand trial for threats made against a doctor planning to provide abortions, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. In a powerful decision for abortion providers being threatened by extremists, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals found in a 2-1 ruling that a jury - not a judge - should determine whether or not a 2011 letter Angel Dillard sent to Dr. . . .