Justin's Political Corner

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, who has faced mounting pressure in recent days to join the rapidly growing number of marriage-equality supporters, announced today that he now is in favor of the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act — and full marriage rights for same-sex couples.

“After much deliberation and after reviewing the legal, public policy and civil-rights questions presented, I support marriage equality for same-sex couples and believe that DOMA should be repealed,” Casey said in a statement exclusively first released to PGN Monday afternoon.

Casey previously backed civil unions for same-sex couples and has said he opposes constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. He has supported pro-LGBT measures such as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Casey said this week that he began to reassess his position on marriage equality in 2011 when the Respect for Marriage Act, which would lift DOMA, was introduced for the first time in the Senate.

“I began to focus on the issue of same-sex marriage much more intensely than I had before,” he said.

Part of that process included considering feedback from LGBT Pennsylvanians and their families, Casey said.

Efforts to press the senator on his position ramped up last week as the U.S. Supreme Court held hearings on a challenge to DOMA and to California’s ban on same-sex marriage. A number of other senators announced they had evolved on marriage equality in the past few days.

Last week, Equality Pennsylvania, Keystone Progress and MoveOn.org launched a major push to get Casey on board, which backers said generated more than 10,000 phone calls, emails and letters from Pennsylvanians urging the senator to support marriage equality.

Casey, a Catholic, acknowledged that his new position may not be universally applauded — but said the issue of equality should be one that people of all parties and background can support.

“I understand that many Americans of good will have strong feelings on both sides of this issue,” he said. “I believe elected public officials have an abiding obligation to refrain from demonizing and dividing people for partisan or political gain. Rather, Democrats and Republicans should come together and find areas of agreement to do what’s best for the country, including lesbian and gay Americans.”

h/t: EPGN.com

During oral arguments this morning, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to at least entertain the argument by House Republicans that gays and lesbians are too politically powerful for constitutional protection.

Roberts suggested that gays and lesbians must be “politically powerful” because politicians are “falling all over themselves” to endorse gay marriage, according to a tweet by Mother Jones’ Adam Serwer. The brief by Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, had reasoned that gays and lesbians are winning political battles and “have the attention of lawmakers,” an absurd claim since the “power” assertion is factually inaccurate, and because such an argument would also cancel out protections for racial minorities and women.

Roberts and his fellow conservatives also expressed concern over the White House’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, with Kennedy calling it “very troubling” and Justice Antonin Scalia criticizing the Justice Department’s “new regime.”

By contrast, several of the court’s liberal justices expressed alarm over the impact of DOMA’s actual deprivation of federal marriage benefits on gays and lesbians, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calling the rights left for married couples after DOMA “skim milk” and questioning, “What kind of marriage is this?” Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, pointed to evidence from a House of Representatives report that lawmakers passed DOMA with improper motives. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely swing vote, repeatedly expressed a different concern with DOMA — that it impinged on state definitions of marriage.

H/T: Think Progress

The Supreme Court will today hear oral arguments in the case against the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that denies equal federal benefits to couples who are legally married under state law and also burdens families and the federal government.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that DOMA increases the deficit by roughly$1 billion a year, and while that amount is small, striking it down would save far more than ending subsidies to NPR or some of the other “deficit reduction” ideas Republicans have pursued in the past.

Those savings would come from numerous sources. Tax revenues would rise by more than $400 million a year, and though costs on programs like Social Security and federal benefits would increase, costs for safety net programs like Medicare, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, and other programs would go down.

That’s significant, because the largest benefit from recognizing same-sex marriages comes from what it would do for individual couples and families. Same-sex couples aren’t allowed to file joint taxes, which prohibits them from claiming some tax credits and deductions that would benefit their families. They also aren’t eligible for spousal health, Social Security, or federal pension benefits, making it harder for some LGBT families to make ends meet. Older LGBT couples are more likely to live in poverty than married heterosexual seniors, which is why ending DOMA would reduce costs for programs like Medicaid and SSI — access to spousal benefits would lift many LGBT Americans out of poverty and off of the social safety net.

Striking down DOMA is important primarily to provide LGBT Americans equal protection under the law. But it’s also important because it will benefit the American economy by helping businesses, reducing the deficit, and lifting people out of poverty.

h/t: Travis Waldron at Think Progress Economy

One day after considering whether states may ban gay marriage, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday on a separate case about whether the federal government may deny equal marriage benefits to same sex couples legally wed in their state.

The case involves Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same sex marriage, thereby denying married gay and lesbian couples the tax, retirement and immigration benefits that straight couples are afforded.

Like opponents of California’s ban on gay marriage, opponents of DOMA say it’s invalid under the Constitution’s equal protection clause. And the case also provides justices an escape route to dismiss it without ruling on the merits. But DOMA may be met with more skepticism with this conservative-leaning Supreme Court because it clashes with states’ rights.

There are three possible outcomes to the case, according to legal scholars.

First, the Court could uphold DOMA by determining that the federal government has a legitimate interest in treating straight and gay couples differently. The would continue the status quo unless and until Congress repeals the law.

Second, the Court could strike down DOMA upon deciding that married same-sex couples are entitled to the same treatment as married opposite-sex couples. That would provide tax and retirement benefits to gay and lesbian couples and let Americans sponsor a gay partner from another country for legal permanent residency.

Third, the Court could conclude that the case lacks standing and send it back to the lower courts for a do-over. The case is unique in that the White House has refused to defend a federal law, leaving the task to House Republicans. If a majority of justices decide that the House majority is not a proper party to defend this, the Court could punt the decision.

As was the case on Prop 8, the likely swing justice is Anthony Kennedy, who has written the Supreme Court’s two key opinions in favor of gay rights. He appeared hesitant Tuesday to impose marriage equality on all states but gay rights advocates are confident that Kennedy will side with them and strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

H/T: Sahil Kapur at TPM

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday in two cases about same-sex marriage. While the rulings will probably not come until the end of the term in June, the justices’ questions could offer hints about which way they are leaning.

Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144

California’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

The court will hear arguments on Tuesday on whether Proposition 8, a California voter initiative that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, violates the federal Constitution.

Federal Benefits for Same-Sex Couples

Wednesday’s arguments will be about whether a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 that defines marriage to be “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” in determining federal benefits violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Full NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/roes-shadow-as-supreme-court-hears-same-sex-marriage-cases.html?gwh=63AD5DDAB6027C0A1970D77DF72EF0E9

During the debate over the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Religious Rightgroups like the American Family Association warned that the law would “criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality” and “take away our religious freedoms.”

Of course, none of that happened, but that hasn’t stopped anti-gay activists from making the exact same false claims again and hoping more people will fall for it.

Yesterday, AFA president Tim Wildmon appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show and alleged that if the Supreme Court overturned Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) then we will see “persecution against Christians” and restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Ironically, the AFA’s own legal counsel, Pat Vaughn, admitted that “the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional.”

In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2013, with the law being challenged before the Supreme Court, Clinton writes that “As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to [the principles of freedom, equality and justice] and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.”

h/t: Laura Clawson at Daily Kos

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act’s prohibition on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages in a Friday filing, arguing that laws that target gay people should face additional scrutiny by courts reviewing them.

Under such heightened scrutiny, as it is called, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli says that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines “spouse” and “marriage” under federal law as only those marriages between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

In summary, the administration argues:

Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional.

Additionally, the administration addresses the question of what should happen to DOMA if the Supreme Court does not agree that such heightened scrutiny applies, writing, “If the Court … applies rational-basis review, the government has previously defended Section 3 under rational-basis review, and does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 under that highly deferential standard.” 

The administration has yet to take a position on the other case addressing same-sex couples’ marriage rights currently before the court, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8. Although not a party to the case, the administration could file an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief to announce its views. The deadline for doing so is February 28.

Windsor - United States merits brief by

h/t: BuzzFeed

The Family Research Council has launched what it is describing as “an ambitious, no-holds-barred campaign to keep marriage as between one man and one woman and preserve the American family.”  FRC is worried about two cases before the Supreme Court that will have “a lasting impact on the very soul of our nation” — one on California’s Prop 8 and one on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

In a direct-mail piece dated on Valentine’s Day, FRC President Tony Perkins says it is important to get members of Congress “to pressure the Supreme Court to come down on the right side of marriage.” Recipients of the letter are encouraged to sign petitions to their representative and senators to urge them to “PRESSURE THE SUPREME COURT TO RULE IN FAVOR OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!”

The text of the petition:

[Representative/Senator], as one of your constituents, I ask that you please use your influence to urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and state statutes banning same-sex “marriage.” The covenant marriage relationship between one man and one woman is a universally accepted social tradition that transcends all cultures and predates any religion. It is essential for procreation and the stability of society. I respectfully request that you do all in your power to urge the Court to uphold traditional marriage. Thank you for your service to our country.

The letter also recycles some of the same false claims that FRC and its allies made about federal hate crimes legislation, suggesting the advance of marriage equality will lead to the federal government dictating what pastors can preach about homosexuality or prosecuting those who preach against same-sex marriage.  Perkins also claims – falsely  – that the “vast majority of Americans do not want to see marriage redefined” and “the vast majority of voters are against the legitimization of same-sex ‘marriage.’” Actually, a majority of Americans supports marriage equality, according to recent polls by Gallup, Wall Street Journal/NBC, Washington Post/ABC, and CBS News.

H/T: Peter Montgomery at RWW

On Tuesday, President Obama unveiled a comprehensive plan for immigration reform based on four tenets: continuing to strengthen border security, cracking down on employers hiring undocumented workers, creating pathways to earned citizenship, and streamlining legal immigration.

Speaking in Nevada, Obama said that the bi-partisan enthusiasm in the Senate is “very encouraging,” and offered a plan that closely resembles the framework outlined by a bipartisan group of eight senators. ”So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon,” Obama said. “The ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush.”

Obama’s proposal shares common ground with the bipartisan framework, but also goes further, specifically permitting binational same-sex couples to apply for legal residency. From the administration’s fact sheet:

The proposal seeks to eliminate existing backlogs in the family-sponsored immigration system by recapturing unused visas and temporarily increasing annual visa numbers.  The proposal also raises existing annual country caps from 7 percent to 15 percent for the family-sponsored immigration system.   It also treats same-sex families as families by giving U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the ability to seek a visa on the basis of a permanent relationship with a same-sex partner. The proposal also revises current unlawful presence bars and provides broader discretion to waive bars in cases of hardship.

Under current law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the government from recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples in which one partner is a U.S. citizen and the other is not. As a result, couples cannot petition for citizenship and are often separated by deportation, at great costs both emotionally and financially to their families.

H/T: Zack Ford at Think Progress LGBT

The Supreme Court will take up a challenge next spring to California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure which amends the state’s constitution to hold that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The outcome could range from requiring all states to accept gay marriage or decreeing such bans constitutional. The justices could also dodge the issue. Here are the different ways the ruling could go.

All Gay Marriage Bans Are Struck Down

This is the outcome desired by the challengers, represented by über-lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies: a sweeping decision that decrees all bans on gay marriage unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.

That would strike down laws in several dozen states prohibiting gay marriage. It would be a dramatic, far-reaching step by any reckoning that would ultimately put the Supreme Court on the right side of history but turn it into a piñata among conservatives in the short-run.

Prop. 8 Is Overturned

The Supreme Court may find Prop. 8 unconstitutional, but limit the ruling to the particulars of the case, legalizing same sex marriage in California without requiring it in other states.

Prop. 8 Is Upheld

The high court may decree Prop. 8 constitutional, affirming a status quo where states have the freedom to determine whether or not to recognize same sex marriage.

The Court has an escape route from making a definitive ruling altogether: “The justices could rule that the case was not defended by the right party and remand the controversy to the lower courts,” wrote Winkler.

h/t: Sahil Kapur at TPM

The United States Supreme Court will review the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down Proposition 8, a 2008 law which banned gay marriage in California.

The appeals court’s ruling issued was issued in February and found the law unconstitutional.

The court will also hear challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.

h/t: Huffington Post

BREAKING: #SCOTUS taking up 2 marriage equality cases – #DOMA and California’s #Prop8.More info to follow.

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) December 7, 2012