Dispatch from the steps of the Supreme Court: High energy on Day 1

Qween2

by John Zangas

On March 26, oral arguments were presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hollingworth v. Perry, a case to reinstate Proposition 8, California’s ballot initiative declaring same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

A frigid day started at 5:30 a.m. with a cold group of sleepovers rising off the sidewalk. As the sun warmed them and more supporters arrived, they roared to life with a vibrant energy. Overwhelmingly for marriage equality, the crowd overpowered several small religious groups speaking against it. Anti-marriage equality folks created a tense situation with signs and slogans, but a colorful youth named Qween danced right in front of them with a pink cross. She joyfully galvanized everyone with dance and turned tension and hate into laughter and smiles. She certainly is a young hero.

I interviewed Qween last night, and she seemed hopeful that change would come. I also interviewed a young attorney; the Lambda legal team of Jon Davidson and Jennifer Pizer; a gay couple who had been together 26 years; and a boy named Leo Crampton whose mothers are to be wed today. I also interviewed a person who believes that marriage is between a man and woman only. They were all very positive and hopeful interviews.

In my view, I believe Justice Kennedy’s line of questioning regarding the impact of Prop 8 on children of same-sex parents is important to this case. How can one justify the negative effects that Prop 8 and DOMA have on these children?

It is impossible to say how the Court will rule. They may find that Prop 8’s defenders have no standing and discard it. Or they could rule on the pivotal issue of marriage equality directly.

The oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry were insulated from the opinions expressed so passionately outside. But based on the sentiments I recorded on the Court’s steps, the time has come for the Justices to rule on this issue directly. This is a historic moment for this court, which probably wants to have its signature on the right side. A ruling for marriage equality will probably prove to be inevitable in light of the support of the President and changes in the U.S. military.

I’ll continue covering the people and stories outside the court as arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) go forward tomorrow.

Advertisements

Supreme Court marriage hearings draw thousands willing to brave Washington’s soggy snow

Both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage are arriving in Washington because of two Supreme Court hearings this week on the controversial issue.

The District, however, didn’t greet visitors with beautiful spring cherry blossoms. Instead, Supreme Court watchers got here just in time for the first snow accumulation in two years.

Shivering and soggy at the base of the Supreme Court’s steps, they nonetheless queued up for tickets to hearings challenging Prop 8, a ballot initiative passed in California, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law.

Several, mostly opponents of Prop 8 and DOMA, are still keeping vigil Monday night in a cold rain. Tents line the sidewalk along 1st Street.

Thousands are expected by Tuesday morning to advocate for their position on gay marriage. For proponents of marriage equality, banishing the Defense of Marriage Act would mean that couples legally married in states permitting same-sex marriage would receive a myriad of federal benefits now denied to them. They also hope that the Court will uphold a federal circuit court’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

DSC_0017Supporters of Prop 8 hope that it will be reinstated and DOMA remains intact, which would keep barriers to same-sex marriage high and establish legal precedent against it.

Whether the Court decides to apply the equal protection clause could determine the extent to which the cases are far-reaching in scope.

They face hurdles of “standing” in the Court. The cases are unusual in that both the state of California (in the case of Prop 8) and the Obama administration (in the case of DOMA) declined to defend the statutes. It may be unprecedented that members of the Congressional House–and not the Department of Justice–will attempt to defend a federal law at the Supreme Court.

The Court will most likely not hand down rulings on the cases until late June.

Health care foes mingle on steps of Supreme Court

There was a strange juxtaposition of protests outside of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, pro-Obama health care and con. At noon a large crowd of pink sign-carrying ralliers mingled with a completely different crowd of Tea Partiers as one protest transitioned to the other.

The protests are prompted by the Supreme Court hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate, the most controversial part of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Health care law supporters emphasized the positives for women’s health, such as coverage for preventative care, while tea partiers characterized the Obamacare insurance mandate as socialism, tyranny and promotion of abortion.

Meanwhile, a certain orange cat struck the proper attitude toward the Supreme Court.