Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyDecember 7th, 2012
The Supreme Court announced that it has agreed to hear U.S. v Windsor, which challenges the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the case on behalf of Edith “Edie” Windsor, who was billed $363,000 in federal estate taxes after her wife died in 2009. The New York couple had married in Canada in 2007, and their marriage was recognized in the state of New York.
According to this afternoon’s Order List that was issued by the Supreme Court (PDF: 48KB/2 pages):
12-307: UNITED STATES V. WINDSOR, EDITH S., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.
The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) took over the active defense of DOMA after the Justice Department announced that they did not believe that DOMA could survive a constitutional challenge under heightened scrutiny, the standard by which the Department argued that DOMA should be judged. Both the Federal District Court judge and the Second Circuit Court Appeals agreed with the Justice Department on both accounts: that DOMA should be examined under heightened scrutiny, and that under that level of scrutiny DOMA fails constitutional muster by violating the Equal Protection clause under the Fifth Amendment.
The added question about BLAG’s standing in the case is something of a surprise. As with the Prop 8 case — Timothy Kincaid has more on that here — the court has given itself an escape hatch to rule on standing without having to rule on the merits. As Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog explains:
It is obvious now why the Court took as much time as it did: the selection process must have been rather challenging, and the compositon of the final orders equally so. The Court, one might say in summary, has agreed to take up virtually all of the key issues about same-sex marriage, but has given itself a way to avoid final decisions on the merits issues.
The court is expected to hear arguments sometime in March, with a final decision in June.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Jim Hlavac
December 7th, 2012
I think the Scotus folks realize that if they decide only in the two cases very specifically, then the onslaught of cases will continue — there’s more in the pipeline already; more come everyday. And they don’t want to imply upfront that they will get rid of DOMA completely, and the little DOMAS if they can — so, the escape hatch, and the request for the entirety of the matter. I think the court realizes full well that we gay folks are not going to give up, ever. And they must weigh that, in a non-legal fashion, of course, with whether they want to hear DOMA and marriage cases for the next decade or more, every year — with more and more conflicting cases from lower courts, as the morass of not obeying the “full faith and credit” clause between states becomes apparent in the mishmash of some states with gay marriage and some without. Oh, give those poor nine a break; they’re not ready yet for the gay challenges; I doubt they even considered all the possibilities and want to know what they’re up against.
Thom Watson
December 7th, 2012
If they decide based on standing, though, then don’t they end up creating the very sort of thing they exist to resolve, a situation where a federal law is annulled only in one circuit, but still applies to citizens in the rest of the country? That’s what confuses me about why they brought up standing in Windsor, but then only accepted one case rather than also accepting another in which standing might not be an issue. Are they willing to let a law be constitutional in some circuits but unconstitutional in others, just to punt having to make a decision? Especially given that DOMA doesn’t even require that any state recognize a same-sex couple’s marriage, I’m confused as to why they wouldn’t want to just address the issue at stake.
Thom Watson
December 7th, 2012
After all, there are conservatives who accept that DOMA is an unconstitutional attack upon federalism. It shouldn’t be nearly as politically risky a decision for the court to make that they feel they have to avoid making it.
Robert
December 7th, 2012
I think that since both cases are unique in their “standing” aspects that both will be decided to lack standing and thus limit the decision to the State of California and to Ms Windsors district. This will be a limited scope decision and they basicly telegraphed that they plan to punt.
CLD
December 8th, 2012
“DOMA fails constitutional muster by violating the Equal Protection clause under the Fifth Amendment.”
WHAT?
The Fifth Amendment has no equal protection clause. The only such clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment which binds only the State goverments.
Do lawyers today even bother to read the Constitution, or do they just make it up as they go along? (That question was rhetorical.)
Marek
December 10th, 2012
CLD, well, I think you might be both right and wrong at the same time. :) The thing is that literally if you look at what is in these amendments – you are right. But it seems to me that the way it has been read in practice was that the state-limiting equal protection clause of the 14th got expanded (based on the 5th) to limit the federal government/law. I might be wrong…
Marek
December 11th, 2012
CLD, see also the text of the question to the SCOTUS:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/windsor-v-united-states/
Its says: “equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment”…
Leave A Comment