President urges court to overturn California gay marriage ban
»Play Video
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a historic argument for gay rights, President Barack Obama on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to overturn California's same-sex marriage ban and turn a skeptical eye on similar prohibitions across the country.
The Obama administration's friend-of-the-court brief marked the first time a U.S. president has urged the high court to expand the right of gays and lesbians to wed. The filing unequivocally calls on the justices to strike down California's Proposition 8 ballot measure, although it stops short of the soaring rhetoric on marriage equality Obama expressed in his inaugural address in January.
California is one of eight states that give gay couples all the benefits of marriage through civil unions or domestic partnership, but don't allow them to wed. The brief argues that in granting same-sex couples those rights, California has already acknowledged that gay relationships bear the same hallmarks as straight ones.
"They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death," the administration wrote.
Obama's position, if adopted by the court, would likely result in gay marriage becoming legal in the seven other states: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
In the longer term, the administration urges the justices to subject laws that discriminate on sexual orientation to more rigorous review than usual, a standard that would imperil other state bans on same-sex marriage.
The brief marks the president's most expansive view of gay marriage and signals that he is moving away from his previous assertion that states should determine their own marriage laws. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, signed off on the administration's legal argument last week following lengthy discussions with Attorney General Eric Holder and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
In a statement following the filing, Holder said "the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law."
Friend-of-the-court briefs are not legally binding. But the government's opinion in particular could carry some weight with the justices when they hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.
Despite the potentially wide-ranging implications of the administration's brief, it still falls short of what gay rights advocates and the attorneys who will argue against Proposition 8 had hoped for. Those parties had pressed the president to urge the Supreme Court to not only overturn California's ban, but also declare all gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
Still, marriage equality advocates publicly welcomed the president's legal positioning.
"President Obama and the solicitor general have taken another historic step forward consistent with the great civil rights battles of our nation's history," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign and co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the legal challenge to Proposition 8.
The president raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on Jan. 21. He said the nation's journey "is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law."
"For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," he added.
Obama has a complicated history on gay marriage. As a presidential candidate in 2008, he opposed the California ban but didn't endorse gay marriage. He later said his personal views on gay marriage were "evolving."
When he ran for re-election last year, Obama announced his personal support for same-sex marriage, but said marriage was an issue that states, not the federal government, should decide.
Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years.
In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By last November, 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.
Gay marriage supporters see the Supreme Court's hearing of Proposition 8, as well as a related case on the Defense of Marriage Act, as a potential watershed moment for same-sex unions.
In a well-coordinated effort, opponents of the California ban flooded the justices with friend-of-the-court briefs in recent days.
Among those filing briefs were 13 states, including four that do not now permit gay couples to wed, and more than 100 prominent Republicans, such as GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Two professional football players who have been outspoken gay rights advocates also filed a brief in the California case. Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo urged the court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
One day after the Supreme Court hears the Proposition 8 case, the justices will hear arguments on provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.
The administration abandoned its defense of the act in 2011, but the measure will continue to be federal law unless it is struck down or repealed.
In a brief filed last week, the government said Section 3 of the act "violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection" because it denies legally married same-sex couples many federal benefits that are available only to legally married heterosexual couples.
The Obama administration's friend-of-the-court brief marked the first time a U.S. president has urged the high court to expand the right of gays and lesbians to wed. The filing unequivocally calls on the justices to strike down California's Proposition 8 ballot measure, although it stops short of the soaring rhetoric on marriage equality Obama expressed in his inaugural address in January.
California is one of eight states that give gay couples all the benefits of marriage through civil unions or domestic partnership, but don't allow them to wed. The brief argues that in granting same-sex couples those rights, California has already acknowledged that gay relationships bear the same hallmarks as straight ones.
"They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death," the administration wrote.
Obama's position, if adopted by the court, would likely result in gay marriage becoming legal in the seven other states: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.
In the longer term, the administration urges the justices to subject laws that discriminate on sexual orientation to more rigorous review than usual, a standard that would imperil other state bans on same-sex marriage.
The brief marks the president's most expansive view of gay marriage and signals that he is moving away from his previous assertion that states should determine their own marriage laws. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, signed off on the administration's legal argument last week following lengthy discussions with Attorney General Eric Holder and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
In a statement following the filing, Holder said "the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law."
Friend-of-the-court briefs are not legally binding. But the government's opinion in particular could carry some weight with the justices when they hear oral arguments in the case on March 26.
Despite the potentially wide-ranging implications of the administration's brief, it still falls short of what gay rights advocates and the attorneys who will argue against Proposition 8 had hoped for. Those parties had pressed the president to urge the Supreme Court to not only overturn California's ban, but also declare all gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
Still, marriage equality advocates publicly welcomed the president's legal positioning.
"President Obama and the solicitor general have taken another historic step forward consistent with the great civil rights battles of our nation's history," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign and co-founder of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the legal challenge to Proposition 8.
The president raised expectations that he would back a broad brief during his inauguration address on Jan. 21. He said the nation's journey "is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law."
"For if we are truly created equal, than surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," he added.
Obama has a complicated history on gay marriage. As a presidential candidate in 2008, he opposed the California ban but didn't endorse gay marriage. He later said his personal views on gay marriage were "evolving."
When he ran for re-election last year, Obama announced his personal support for same-sex marriage, but said marriage was an issue that states, not the federal government, should decide.
Public opinion has shifted in support of gay marriage in recent years.
In May 2008, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans felt same-sex marriages should not be recognized by the law as valid. By last November, 53 percent felt they should be legally recognized.
Gay marriage supporters see the Supreme Court's hearing of Proposition 8, as well as a related case on the Defense of Marriage Act, as a potential watershed moment for same-sex unions.
In a well-coordinated effort, opponents of the California ban flooded the justices with friend-of-the-court briefs in recent days.
Among those filing briefs were 13 states, including four that do not now permit gay couples to wed, and more than 100 prominent Republicans, such as GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Two professional football players who have been outspoken gay rights advocates also filed a brief in the California case. Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo urged the court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
One day after the Supreme Court hears the Proposition 8 case, the justices will hear arguments on provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.
The administration abandoned its defense of the act in 2011, but the measure will continue to be federal law unless it is struck down or repealed.
In a brief filed last week, the government said Section 3 of the act "violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection" because it denies legally married same-sex couples many federal benefits that are available only to legally married heterosexual couples.
Stick to trying to fix the economy!
Honestly, If you are against Gay rights then you are a sad, poor excuse of an American. Â I thought we as a people valued our rights, yet so many of you ignore the rights of minority groups such as gay people. Â They are citizens of this country and as such have the same rights. Â
Those of you who are against this should hang your heads in shame, you are poor excuses for Americans. Â I for one am sad to share this nation with you. Â
@DeadRabitz "I for one am sad to share this nation with you" Then leave!
Unfortunately, in my personal opinion, this is the least of our country's worries right know.....out control spending, bloated debt, walking a thin line for a another possible depression/recession. And this guy wants to urge the court to reverse the ban on same sex unions WTF....to me this man has no clue and is driving us down the road to oblivion all the while he is still out there pandering to everyone like he is still campaigning for the election.....I fear that we as a nation, like other civilizations before are going to perish just as the ROMANS did.....from within........it is not that I am scared for me, is the fact that I am scared for my children and so, because of the possible mess that we are creating for them.....
@MÂ Yea, I know because their will always be "something" more important than the rights of you fellow americans. Â
Ask yourself this, are you more afraid of the government actually spending less I.E. the sequester or showing you children that the Constitution means nothing? Â
@DeadRabitz @M Gays have every right to marry the opposite sex! That's what marriage is! If they want their own unions call them garriage!
@Man Seveneleven @DeadRabitz @M Gay people have a right to marriage. Whom they choose to use that right with is none of your business.
The Constitution means nothing to BO. He has no shame and will say or do anything to get his way. Is he gay?
@jdoll88Â DId you know that DOMA is a direct violation of at least 2 clauses in the constitution... Nope didn't think you did.
Ever hear of Equal protection under the law...didn't think so. Â What about the fact that marriage is a right. Yup it is you can even reference it under Loving V. Virginia. Â
Honestly, the fact that you would not stand up for the rights of your fellow Americans shows us all just how poor an excuse you are of an American. Â
@DeadRabitz @jdoll88 Dear Dead...yes, you are correct. I am a rotten American. I am sorry that I do not long to see our society turned into a homosexual utopia. But the good news is your side is winning. Your dream will be a reality one day and we who don't share your vision of a perfect gay society will be silenced and locked away in prison or a mental facility. I would urge you and your supporters to relax and enjoy your continued victories in the courts and elsewhere. Â
@DeadRabitz I understand your point, but I do not agree. Again I am an awful American. There is a reason why gay marriage is viewed by many as strange, because it is. Again, your side is winning. Enjoy the sweet victories.
@jdoll88 @DeadRabitz it's amazing that you still fail to see why you are a poor excuse for an American.
Lets look at it like this. We ALL as Americans value our rights, we all have the same rights, yet so many so called Americans will stand in opposition of the rights of their fellow citizens. In many way we are expected to put our personal feelings aside and support the rights of our fellow Americans. For example, I completely disagree with the hate filled rants of the Westboro Baptists. Yet I must support thier right to spew that message.
If we really want to be the land of the free then we can not disenfranchise our own citizens. It is hypocritical to say that we are free when we actively deny our own citizens their natural born rights.
Your failure to see that is why you fail as an American.
I am not looking for a "homosexual utopia" just freedom for my fellow citizens.
@jdoll88 I think it means a lot to him. Marriage equality shouldn't be a right conferred upon some groups and not others. And to anybody watching, he's not gay and you don't have to be gay to support gay rights.
@Bob Fuller His agenda is paramount to obama and his "urgings" should be in the direction of figuring how he's going to fix an out of control and unconstitutional Federal Reserve bank. He needs to leave the decision about gay rights to the court, and keep his mind on fixing the mess he has generated.
@Bob Fuller Did you feel the same way when Bush spent his terms cleaning up the previous administrations messes? After all, if Clinton didn't do something with Bin Laden when he had him, perhaps that tragic day on Sept 11 2001 would not have happened. Talk about messes!
@komoispropaganda @Bob Fuller That's right. Everyone's worried about the Federal Reserve. Riots in the streets! And, last I checked (and I don't check at all), the Supreme Court is where this gay civil rights issue is right now. Amicus briefs are part of the judicial process and the president, being a constitutional scholar, is well suited to providing such a brief. Â
Our president has the uncanny ability to work on more than one thing at a time -- he's been cleaning up messes/putting out infernos (pick your analogy) that were from his predecessor in the office who not only couldn't do more than one thing at a time, rarely did his single task well at all.
@Bob Fuller @jdoll88 I am constantly amazed at the energy this man and other Dems expend on gay issues. Roughly 5% of the population would identify as gay. As they say..."follow the money". If gays were not generally affluent BO and company would not give them the time of day.  He has sold his soul to push the radical gay agenda.
@jdoll88 @Bob Fuller Are you truly saying that because this class of people is "roughly 5%" they shouldn't be afford the Civil Rights granted to the  other 95%? Just what was a Southern White man who was president of the US in the 1960's rational then for giving Blacks their Civil Rights? Lord knows it sure wasn't because of the deep pockets that Blacks had at that time.
Sequester is a problem for someone else I guess.
@Release The Cracken Yup, per the constitution it's congresses job.
Its funny how the will of the people doesnt seem to matter much  anymore.Â
@Busyhands Because the will of the people can be wrong.  We have the document that give us the rules and one of those rules is equal protection under the law.  Another is the right to marriage. Â
But I guess you are just to busy to know those things.
@Busyhands When it comes to Civil Rights, the will of the majority should NEVER apply.  Perhaps you've not read your history book. For an example, please refer to the civil rights movement of the US, circa 1950-1969. Should the will of the majority have mattered in that case when the majorities will was to deny the rights of a class of people?
@sorbothegeek Ah yes! Compare the plight of blacks in this country with the radical gay agenda.  Absolute nonsense and an insult to blacks.
@jdoll88 @sorbothegeek Oh really and why don't you enlighten us all. Â
Here, Ill give you a little head start, go look up loving V. Virginia. Â
@jdoll88 @sorbothegeek The majority will ALWAYS consider the agenda of a minority class to be radical. A Black seeking to marry a white woman. Radical. A Black seeking the right to vote. Radical. A woman seeking the right to vote. Radical. A woman seeking the right to own property. Radical. The list is endless of the radical agendas that the majority considers the minority to have.
I cannot wait until we have a President again........I cannot stand this guy.Â
I'm curious who did you think was the last real President?
@JustaguyÂ
In my life, I think we have had three real Presidents in my order of preference
1)Reagan
2) Clinton
3) Bush Sr.
I wish Obama would just shut up for once and do his job! Â I'm sick of this talking head that does nothing. Â
@PlumBUSTED! Last I looked, advocating for the rights of Americans is exactly his job.
Still playing with 'hot-button' issues to further polarize, while we're on the brink of financial meltdown. The big money concerns have both political parties in their pockets. They've robbed and hocked the nation. Now they're paying for distractions. Obama is just another cheap actor.
Last time I check the constitution it was illegal for the president to interfere in the dealings of the Supreme Court... thatâs right I forgot this one does not need to uphold that old thing. He can just do as he pleases and he will get another Nobel Prize...
@bustedupredneck Try re-reading it. Â
@bustedupredneck Your understanding of the workings of the Federal government is flawed. The President is more than free to give his opinion on what he thinks the other branches should do: he can give speeches calling on Congress to pass laws and give his opinion on court cases all he wants. In fact, that's mostly what Presidents do--use their position as a pulpit from which to espouse their views. There's even a position (Solicitor General) DEDICATED to arguing the government's point of view in the courts.
@jt88Â @bustedupredneck He didn't render an opinion. He "urged" the issue with the judges. He has no business in the courts and even less to do with states rights. He's a constitutional lawyer and he knows he's wrong for emphasizing any issue that the supreme court has in motion.
@komoispropaganda @jt88 @bustedupredneck Your idea of constitutional law is foggier than a mirror in a blizzard. The Justice Department files amicus briefs so often that it hardly bears mentioning, and is a well-established way for an administration to convey its opinion on legal matters. Of course, the Court has no obligation whatsoever to listen to the legal logic in ANY amicus brief, but the legality of filing one is not in doubt whatsoever. So suggest otherwise is purely ignorant.
"Obama has a complicated history on gay marriage. As a presidential candidate in 2008, he opposed the California ban but didn't endorse gay marriage. He later said his personal views on gay marriage were "evolving.""
The double standards of the media will always amaze me. When ANY Republican politician "evolves" they refer to it as flip flopping and bash them for it, yet this guy continues to get a free pass...
So influencing judges is a presidential function now? If I tried to influence the court I'd be looking at grey bars.
@komoispropaganda You can file as many amicus briefs as you want and you won't go to jail. It's your right. Whether anyone will read them is another story.
@jt88 @komoispropaganda I'm not talking about the general public. I'm talking about restrictions in government.
@komoispropaganda Uh...  I'm sorry, but your comment is based on biased opinion and not on law... Look up the law surrounding "friend of the court" briefs and then try again.
@iliketurtlez@komoispropaganda
Three branches of government separated for checks and balance. The president is in no position to be a friend of the court, especially when it comes to constitutional interpretation.
You must have gone to school with barry boy. The only influence the president has is in the nomination of candidates for the seat.
A little history lesson may enlighten you on supreme court function.
 http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/supreme_court.htm
@komoispropaganda @iliketurtlez Komo- they will will only ask that the President stay with in the law if it is what they want.
He never ceases to amaze me...and not in a good way!