SCOTUS talks same sex marriage: San Francisco responds

LGBT activists held a vigil in San Francisco yesterday to call for marriage equality.

LGBT rights activists held a vigil outside the California Supreme Court building in San Francisco March 26 as part of several events launched in response to yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Proposition 8. Today, the court is considering the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that restricts federal marriage benefits for same-sex couples.

The slideshow features interviews with  (in order of appearance) Justin Taylor, who said he was there to stand up for the rights of his mothers, who have been together for 16 years; Jackie Jolly, who said that for her the issue is about the underlying principle of equality; Thomas Coy, who teared up as he addressed the crowd and shared a memory of his husband, who passed away three years ago; and Trey Allen, who helped organize a rally and march on Monday and expressed hope that the Supreme Court would reach a favorable outcome at the end of June.

Photos, audio and slideshow by Rebecca Bowe

This evening, LGBT activists will return to 350 McAllister Street in San Francisco to hold a second vigil from 4 to 8 p.m.


from the very same group who stands to benefit from the voters of CA being denied their elected preference, any more than I would expect objectivity from a rabid christian on this topic.

Thankfully, SCOTUS takes it's cues from the law, the arguments and the facts, and not from a self-serving advocacy group, no matter how noisey and fervent they are.

I continue to hope that SCOTUS rules very narrowly on this issue, and continues to grant States their sovereignty over what, in any event, has always been deemed a matter for the States - marriage.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 11:31 am

I take it that means you'll favor the plaintiffs in the DOMA case, since that's about the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages in those states that allow it.

Posted by Hortencia on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 7:34 am

matter only for the States, then it does create a problem with any federal rules that depend on marriage.

The usual reciprocity rules imply that one States has to accept a marriage from another State, even if that couple would not qualify for marriage in the destination State.

But DOMA carves out an exception for that.

We cannot really have different federal tax rules for each State so, if the Feds are going to have a rule at all, it has to be the same in all 50.

I'd guess SCOTUS wull rule narrowly and, at worst, invalidate a small part of DOMA and leave the rest in place. You cannot be married federally if you're not married somewhere else.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 8:05 am ARE married federally (or rather, married in the eyes of the federal government) if you're married according to the laws of a state, right?

Posted by Hortencia on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 8:37 am

There is also a cost to providing federal benefits to same-sex couples, as there would be for any unmarried but cohabing couple.

I'd guess the cost runs into billions. Voters are entitled to consider that.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 8:50 am

What do the voters have to do with DOMA? No one ever asked them.

Posted by Hortencia on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 9:00 am
Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 9:05 am

But voters' opinions change, and their will is currently being stymied in the House of Representatives, which isn't representative of who voted Democrat and who voted Republican because of gerrymandering.

But it doesn't matter. Civil rights of individuals and states rights to recognize same-sex marriages shouldn't be up for a vote of the House of Representatives.

Posted by Hortencia on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 9:20 am

State-by-State matter, then it is illogical for DOMA toe xist in it's current form.

And if I had to choose between them, I'd prefer gay marriage to remain a State issue, with the Feds simply accepting what each State decides.

You've convinced me.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 10:46 am

"There is also a cost to providing federal benefits to same-sex couples, as there would be for any unmarried but cohabing couple."

Let them marry and they'd no longer be an unmarried, cohabiting couple. Problem solved!

Posted by Hortencia on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 9:12 am

Same sex couples pay in the same amount to Social Security and Medicare as het couples. That is our money, not an "entitlement from the taxpayers," and we want our money back.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 9:22 am

...the same value for the money as opposite-sex couples get.

Posted by Hortencia on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 10:04 am

These conservative hets want to steal our hard earned money and pay it to themselves or, worse, the banks.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 10:09 am

all federal benefits to same-sex couples. So it is reasonable and legitimate for voters to consider the cost of that, and the effect on the fiscal budget deficit.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 10:47 am

As was revealed again in yesterday's hearings, the House Report on DOMA in 1996 showed that the motivation behind the legislation wasn't cost-savings or uniformity, but moral disapproval of homosexuality.

Posted by Hortencia on Mar. 28, 2013 @ 10:08 am

Were there more than, like, 20 people there?

Posted by Chromefields on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

Occupy camp in 2011 as soon as the rains arrived.

Posted by anon on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 1:32 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Police provide explanation of Bernal Heights Park shooting at emotional town hall meeting

  • San Francisco's untouchables

    Is San Francisco trying to help the homeless -- or drive them away?

  • Draining the tank

    Students push UC system to divest from fossil fuels, joining an international movement gathering soon in San Francisco