skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Supreme Court Rules DOMA Unconstitutional, Prop 8 Petitioners Have No Legal Standing

Evening Edition

Aired 6/26/13 on KPBS Midday Edition.

GUESTS:

Val Wood, Chief Deputy Recorder, County Clerk, San Diego County

Katie Orr, State Government Reporter, Capitol Public Radio

Glenn Smith, Constitutional Law Professor, California Western School of Law

Charles LiMandri, General Counsel, National Organization for Marriage

Julie Greenberg, Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Mattheus Stephens, SD civil trial lawyer, specializing in LGBT law

Richard Valdez, Board Member,San Diego LGBT Community Center

Transcript

UPDATE 1:10 p.m. PT Appeals court says it will wait at least 25 days before allowing gay marriages in Calif., the Associated Press reports.

After an almost five-year debate on Proposition 8, the Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marrige to resume in California. The high court ruled that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal lower court decisions that deemed the state's voter-approved measure unconstitutional.

Awaiting the Supreme Court decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense Of Marriage Act, John Shaw looks at a rainbow flag flying atop a flagpole in Hillcrest, June 26, 2013.

Document

Supreme Court Decision On Defense Of Marriage Act

Supreme Court Decision On Defense Of Marriage Act

See the Supreme Court's full decision on the ...

Document

Supreme Court Decision On Proposition 8

Supreme Court Decision On Proposition 8

The Supreme Court ruled petitioners against Proposition 8 ...

Upon hearing the news, Molly McKinley in San Diego was brought to tears.

"I never thought I'd see this because after 2008 I just thought it was out of my reach," she said.

"Now that it's actually happened, it's the best day of my life," she cried, standing early today at the base of the flagpole flying a rainbow flag in Hillcrest.

On a truly historic day, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

"DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a state entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty," the court's opinion said.

John Shaw was also part of a slowly growing crowd this morning in Hillcrest as the rulings were announced and said he was "very happy" with the high court's DOMA ruling.

"It will now allow my husband and me to participate in federal programs," he said.

San Diego City Council President Todd Gloria, a gay man, said he was pleased with the decision.

"Today is an especially proud day to be an American," he said in an official statement. "When civil rights are secured for more people, our country is stronger."

Gloria said he will ask the council's rules committee "to examine all of the city's policies to make sure they are consistent with post-DOMA federal regulations and that our employees are afforded proper benefits."

California Gov. Jerry Brown also comment on the decision.

He tweeted: "I've directed [California's Department of Public Health] to advice counties to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as 9th Circuit stay is lifted."

However, San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality's Kelly Hutton, who also joined the crowd in Hillcrest, said the battle for equality isn't over.

"No matter what, we're still not done yet — no matter what our rulings are, win or lose," she said.

Hutton said the LGBT community still has to fight for equal rights related to employment, healthcare and immigration.

Congressman Scott Peters, who recently joined the "NOH8 On The Hill" campaign, released his statement this morning as well.

"It is a significant day for the American ideals of equality and fairness," Peters said in his written statement. "I am proud to stand with the LGBT community as all Americans can celebrate this news.

With the ruling in the Proposition 8 case, Californians will now be able to marry the person who they love. This is a reaffirmation of the loving commitments that LGBT Californians are already sharing across our state ... It is about time we move beyond division and discrimination and instead work toward ensuring the equal rights guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution."

Congresswoman Susan Davis also commented on the ruling.

"These rulings are an affirmation of marriage, love and commitment of two loving people for the good of society. It is also an affirmation of the spirit of equality that is laid out in our constitution. Today, the court moved us into the 21st Century where future generations can be proud of who they are," she said in her written statement.

Evening Edition

KPBS' Maureen Cavanaugh, Patty Lane, Megan Burke and Peggy Pico contributed to this Midday and Evening Edition segment

Comments

Avatar for user 'heteromeles'

heteromeles | June 26, 2013 at 9:22 a.m. ― 1 year ago

Great news!

I hope Carl DeMaio now takes this chance to get married, along with everyone else who has been waiting.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 26, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. ― 1 year ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

( )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 26, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. ― 1 year ago

"Today is an especially proud day to be an American," he said in an official statement. "When civil rights are secured for more people, our country is stronger."

Mr Gloria, care to comment about what a shameful day yesterday was for Americans thanks to SCOTUS?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 26, 2013 at 12:15 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Happy overall with the gay marriage rulings, upset about the voter rifts and some of the anti-worker decisions earlier in te week.

I don't support civil rights in a bubble and I don't cherry pick rights based on if they apply to me personally or not.

All people deserve equality under the law and for equality in general, it's been a mixed-week at the High Court.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 26, 2013 at 12:18 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Congratulations to all my GLBT brothers and sisters, it's a victory for our country.

Just remember that with new rights come new responsibilities.

California is a community property state, please research what this means before taking the plunge.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 26, 2013 at 12:20 p.m. ― 1 year ago

A technical question: CA moved to make domestic partnerships have the same rights as marriage at the state level.

What happens now to domestic partnerships?

Do they remain?

I researched this in Washington and they are auto-converting DPs to marriages within 1 year.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 26, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. ― 1 year ago

@heterome., yes, he can marry his exfelon boyfriend--although not so quick--and then run for congress on the Repuke ticket as he plans.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 26, 2013 at 12:22 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Will "Todd Glory_o e be the next CDM but on the Demo side???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 26, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. ― 1 year ago

This is not a proud day for me. As an American, I am utterly ashamed at what this country is becoming. Very sad.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 26, 2013 at 2:26 p.m. ― 1 year ago

A victory for humanity.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 26, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Jean, now that same sex marriage will be allowed once again in California, I will await your detailed summaries of how exactly your marriage and you personally are suffering because of it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | June 26, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. ― 1 year ago

"This is not a proud day for me. As an American, I am utterly ashamed at what this country is becoming. Very sad."

I bet you wish interracial marriage was illegal, too. Keep clinging to that hate.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'corinnarose'

corinnarose | June 26, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. ― 1 year ago

I was hoping to call in to the show and make this comment, but the discussion sort of went in different directions.
One of the common statements I hear from those who oppose same sex marriage is that it is some how new to humanity. I hear things like 'it never existed in recorded history,' or 'marriage has always been between a man and a woman.'
As an anthropologist and an instructor, I spend a good deal of class time covering marriage across cultures and in various historical and prehistoric time periods. The truth is that marriage is not always about the union of a man and woman. The rights and responsibilities of marriage vary quite a bit in different cultures, and it IS true that in many cultures, marriage is primarily about raising children. Which is precisely why some cultures allow same sex marriage even if they do not condone homosexual behavior. For example if a strict patrilineal group has a family with no sons, the daughter may be able to take a wife and she will act as a husband. They will not be homosexual necessarily, but both have children from different (or the same) genitor, but they will parent the child and they will become part of the 'female husband's' patriline. On the other hand, in cultures (like ours-- I would suggest) that base the rights and responsibilities of marriage on love between two individuals, and NOT on the ability to bear biological children, same sex unions are allowed on the basis of homosexuality.
In addition there are several cultures that allow for a third gender role and people who identify as non-male or non-female may be allowed to live their life in a separate gender, with various levels of acceptability.
Ethnographic research on all these examples is easy to find. I just wish that there was some recognition that the idea that homosexuality and/or same sex marriage is new to the world is completely false.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 26, 2013 at 8:07 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Corinnarose, good point. Unfortunately, many people confuse "Biblical History" with world history.

The bond and union between two people who love each other has existed since the birth of mankind, and this idea tat Christianity somehow owns this union is completely ridiculous and absurd.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 26, 2013 at 10:44 p.m. ― 1 year ago

AL ANON, with you being an immigration restrictionist if not an all out Nativist, I find it hypocritical that you cite the above in replying to the other poster--not to mention your equally incongruous, hard to believe sympathy with the Palestinian people on another post.

Will the real Al Anon please stand up?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 26, 2013 at 10:45 p.m. ― 1 year ago

nternational Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, 26 June
www.un.org/en/events/drugabuseday/‎
"On this International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, I call on governments, the media and civil society to do everything possible to raise ...
‎Documents - ‎Events - ‎Healthy Communities - ‎Resources
International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit ... - Time and Date
www.timeanddate.com › Calendar › Holidays‎
The United Nations' (UN) International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking falls on June 26 each year to raise awareness of the major problem that ...

Who cares about THAT! We 'mericans have greater priorities!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 26, 2013 at 10:51 p.m. ― 1 year ago

"As an anthropologist and an instructor, I spend a good deal of class time covering marriage across cultures and in various historical and prehistoric time periods. The truth is that marriage is not always about the union of a man and woman. The rights and responsibilities of marriage vary quite a bit in different cultures, and it IS true that in many cultures, marriage is primarily about raising children. Which is precisely why some cultures allow same sex marriage even if they do not condone homosexual behavior"

Yet you fail to mention even one. Only gullible ducks will believe you. Besides, your reasoning would be like using the newly discovered native tribe in the Chaco region of South America between Brasil and Paraguay, I believe, and using THAT as "evidence" against Globalization! You get an lol for that one!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 27, 2013 at 6:44 a.m. ― 1 year ago

So Mission, I guess your belief is that both marriage/the equivalent of marriage and homosexual relationships suddenly and spontaneously occurred when Jesus was born?

Just because someone names something or sticks it in a book (like the bible) doesn't mean they invented it.p or own it.

Christianity seems to be doing to marriage what Myriad genetics did with BRCA1and BRCA2 genes - try to patent something that exists in nature.

It's human nature to love a special someone and to make a life partner with someone they love and trust. No religion owns this union, and it's pretty arrogant on the part of those Christians who claim Christianity owns marriage, something practiced worldwide by all religions and non religious people alike.

As someone mentioned previously, what the bible says about any of this is bout as relevant as what Dr. Seuss said about it in his books.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'corinnarose'

corinnarose | June 27, 2013 at 7:34 a.m. ― 1 year ago

Its true that I did not provide sources or citations. I thought this was a discussion, not an academic debate. I did mention that sources and ethnographic research on these topics is relatively easy to find. A good idea would be to search peer-reviewed articles in ethnographic publications. In these days of the internet, I am certain you can turn up lots of good sources with relatively little effort.
Some cultures that have marriage practices that would seem very strange to us, yet have had them for hundreds if not thousands of years are: The Nuer of North Africa, the Igbo of Nigeria, and the Lovedu of South Africa (female husbands), several groups of AmerIndians on the North American plains (third gender-Berdaches), another interesting one is the Azande of Sudan, who marry three times in their lives, first older men (as an apprentice-wife), then younger men (who become their apprentices) and finally, once they retire from their role as warrior, they take on female wives and start a family. This last example may be functional, because you don't want warriors getting killed and leaving behind wives and children without support in the community. With male-male (or warrior-warrior) marriage, there is no risk of children, and they wait until later in life to take on female wives and have children when they are not at risk of dying in battle.

In addition to these, there are also lots of examples of polygyny (multiple wives) and polyandry (multiple husbands-- though this is more rare), arranged marriage (and its sub-category of forced marriage), brother-sister marriage (among Hawaiian, Incan, and Egyptian royals), and child marriage. I do not necessarily want people to condone these marriages, but we need to recognize that our culture is not the only one on the planet, and that there is a huge variety in humanity when it comes to norms about sexuality, family life, and marriage.

In a study done in 1951 by Ford and Beach, only 37% of the 76 societies for which data was available at the time found homosexuality or eroticism between members of the same sex to be "absent, rare, or secret" (that works out to 28 of them). In the rest of the societies, various forms of same sex sexual behavior were excepted or considered normal. That study was done in 1951. So, back to my point, the very idea that homosexuality, or same-sex marriage is new is totally erroneous and I am tired of people talking about that as if this 'new-ness' was a fact. We (I guess by 'we' I mean people who study or are at least aware of cultures outside our own 'mega-western' culture) have known about the existence of a wide range of sexual preferences that have or have not been reflected in marriage practices across cultures for a century or more.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'corinnarose'

corinnarose | June 27, 2013 at 7:34 a.m. ― 1 year ago

I think the most important thing to remember is that we in the West are actually very strange compared to most ancient and contemporary cultures BECAUSE we expect marriage to be based on falling in love and living happily ever after. Most cultures expect love to happen AFTER marriage, not before. So they arrange marriages or marry their daughters off young, and hope for the best. Its not because they are hateful or dont understand love, but because for their culture, love is secondary to economic, political, and family relationships. For most of humanity's history, it was nothing alarming if you were not in love with your spouse-- it was supposed to be a partnership. If you were lucky, the life experiences you shared as a couple, as parents, and as members of the community would draw you together and you would fall in love.

I think since our culture places such a strong emphasis on finding love BEFORE marriage, we have to accept that marriages are not about procreation, family alliances, or political clout anymore. Further (and sorry for going off topic) we can get a better understanding of why we have such a high divorce rate-- once we get married, we sort of stop trying to fall in love!! If we expect hetero sexual marriages to be about falling in love, we need to also accept that homosexuals will expect to be able to marry (and divorce?) because of love.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 27, 2013 at 10:15 a.m. ― 1 year ago

Duck, you are so psychically-scarred that you bring in religion to every argument that you happen to disagree with! Did I mention even mention religion, Jesus or the Bible (yes, capital "B") even once??? No. yet you persist in your own psychologically-triggered bigotry. Why, I remember how personally torn you were on the Muslim women public swimming pool issue! LOL

I don't know how old you are, but you obviously know even very little of Leftist history. It used to be in the late 60s, throught the 70s and even into the 80s, a segment of the American Left, or more precisely, the Left in general, rejected the idea of imposing Western social mores, social values, ethics, cultural practices, etc, regardless of whether they were "traditional" or not, on what was then called the Third World. This largely came from the now extinct Fanonian Left which oddly enough was part of the New Left. It was accurately called "cultural imperialism." Think about THAT next time you simplistically label all criticism of GLBT as religion-based.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 27, 2013 at 10:27 a.m. ― 1 year ago

Ms Rose, oh, to be sure, I have heard of such groups. I remember reading about a similar group of men in an isolated part of India in a book by Octavio Paz.

However, these are isolated groups, or anomalies, pastoral or even nomadic, or limited to their ruling class within their own subgroup, in some instances and have had little influence on their larger societies (I don't know the sociological term), pre-colonial, colonial, let alone post-colonial! The Azande of the Sudan which you mention, for example, largely practice, or have practiced in the past, a form of what we would call witchcraft! So such a group could hardly be considered as contributing to some form of social advancement.

Your argument is like using the past practice of eunuchs and using that as some "justification" (for lack of a better word) for modern day androgyny. It doesn't work.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'alain_j_perez'

alain_j_perez | June 27, 2013 at 10:33 a.m. ― 1 year ago

I find the recent Supreme Court decision on DOMA and on Prop 8 fascinating. It was about time we, as a country, stopped discriminating towards a segment of the population. Is not about whether you believe in marrying someone of the same sex or family values, etc. It's about treating everyone equally under our "secular" Constitution.

I have an opinion for those that do not agreed with these recent rulings. If you do not believe on marrying someone of your same sex, then don't marry them! But please, let those who love each other marry if they wish. It won't affect you at all. If you do not agree with the US allowing same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples then do not worry about it, it won't affect you either.

And also, don't worry about the religious arguments about this either. I warranty you, same sex couples won't be seeking to be wed at a religious institution that do not welcome them in the first place. They'll be going to the secular Justice of the Peace for their marriages.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 27, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Another lecture, Mission?

We can all Google and Wikipedia the irrelevant stuff you post here, but this comes down to simply you believe in equal rights or not.

I do.

You apparently don't.

I may have jumped to conclusions by bringing religion into my response to you when you hadn't brought it up first, but I's still like you to answer my question as I'm curious to what your response would be.

What came first - religion or the union of two people who love each other?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 27, 2013 at 2:27 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Mission Accomplished, you say “Duck, you are so psychically-scarred that you bring in religion to every argument that you happen to disagree with!” and “The Azande of the Sudan which you mention, for example, largely practice, or have practiced in the past, a form of what we would call witchcraft! So such a group could hardly be considered as contributing to some form of social advancement.”

It strikes me as odd that in one post you berate someone for brining religion into an argument about culturally accepting homosexual marriage and then in the next post attempt to use the religion of a group who practices it as proof that they cannot be a valid reference of legitimate culture. Did I miss something?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 28, 2013 at 9:26 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Either/or fallacy duckster. Fail.

And nope, Duckster, I actually read books from cover to cover. Google only when I need to check something quick.

Irrelevant? Do you want to deny what was once called Cultural Imperialism? What kind of a liberal/leftist are you???

I know, an intellectually dishonest one.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 28, 2013 at 9:29 p.m. ― 1 year ago

Benzzz, is witchcraft an organized religion??? And WHICH witchcraft??? The one in Haiti? The one in N'Olens? The one in Veracruz??? Macumba in Brasil???

Don't you worry about Duckster, worry about your own logic.

Same-Sex Couple Seeks Immigration Relief From High Court - KPBS
www.kpbs.org › News › Jun 23, 2013‎
6 days ago – The Sunday morning party in suburban Washington, D.C., had all the trappings of anticipation.

Benzzz is personally torn! He is going into convulsions!!! lol

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 28, 2013 at 9:30 p.m. ― 1 year ago

P.S.: Of course, Qwak, you probably don't even know who Fanon was!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 28, 2013 at 10:16 p.m. ― 1 year ago

duck: Uh, I can't think of a rebuttal, so I'll just call it "irrelevant" and run off in a different direction!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 29, 2013 at 8:23 a.m. ― 1 year ago

Mission, your style of debate, or more appropriately arguing, is like a D-rated lawyer.

You use tactics that come across as amateurish and silly.

First, you over-generalize people's statements. I bring up religion in a gay marriage discussion, a topic in which religion has been a major player, and then you claim:

"Think about THAT next time you simplistically label all criticism of GLBT as religion-based"

I never did this, but I am talking about the part that is.

You then go off on your own divergent tangents because you are one of those types of people who reads a book, finds it interesting, then has to force it into any conversation you have no matter how unrelated because your breadth is poor, scope is narrow, and you make up for it by trying to insert the sporadic quasi-intellectual tid-bits you have just picked-up from the internet or books or the news.

The point of comments boards like this is for people to discuss and react.

Just because someone makes a comment you classify as liberal or conservative does not mean they need a lecture on the history of ideological movements.

You make emotional and reactionary comments in certain articles that you have a personal stake in , for example immigration.

But in other stories, like gay rights, you hide behind a bunch of obscure, unrelated rants that you THINK sound intellectual but they really reveal a poor attempt at trying to hide behind your own bigotry.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | June 30, 2013 at 8:21 a.m. ― 1 year ago

MA "Benzzz, is witchcraft an organized religion??? "
If you can name and describe several types of it in a specific way I would posit it must have some level of organization. Are you claiming it does not have an organization? If you are, are you then claiming that if it is not organized it is not a religion? That seems a bit arrogant to me.

By the way, there is only one Z.

( | suggest removal )